The U.S. Justice Department has announced it will no longer allow the American Bar Association (ABA) to evaluate President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. In a letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to ABA President William Bay, the department stated that nominees will not be guided to grant waivers for the ABA’s access to confidential information such as bar records. Moreover, nominees will not be required to respond to ABA questionnaires or participate in interviews with the ABA’s standing committee on the judiciary.
Bondi expressed concerns over the ABA’s impartiality, claiming that the organization no longer serves as a fair evaluator of nominees’ qualifications, alleging that its assessments tend to favor candidates from Democratic administrations. In contrast, the ABA has refrained from commenting on the letter.
This recent decision reflects a continued reduction of the ABA’s traditional role in the judicial nomination process, a trend that has been developing since previous administrative terms. Both the Trump and Bush administrations had curtailed the ABA’s involvement, a practice that President Biden has upheld. Robert Luther III, a former Trump White House attorney overseeing judicial nominations, stated that the withdrawal of the ABA from the process is a positive development, noting that the association’s evaluations had unfairly impacted the reputations of several distinguished judicial nominees.
The ABA’s standing committee, independent from the broader organization, has been instrumental in vetting judicial candidates since the Eisenhower era. It rates nominees as “not qualified,” “qualified,” or “well qualified.” However, the evolving political climate has shaped perceptions of the ABA, with some Republicans criticizing the committee’s “Not Qualified” ratings for Trump’s nominees, while progressives have praised the Biden administration for limiting corporate influence in the vetting process.
The Trump administration has also shown increased hostility toward the ABA, affecting employee participation in its events and threatening its law school accreditation due to diversity mandates. Despite this, the ABA has taken a firm stance against threats aimed at federal judges and has engaged in litigation concerning government actions against law firms and courts.
This development indicates a significant shift in the relationship between the Justice Department and the ABA, which could have far-reaching implications for future judicial nominations and the organizations involved in the vetting process.