Justice Department Cuts Ties with ABA on Judicial Nominee Ratings
- The New York Editorial Desk - Arif
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Agency says ABA will be treated like any other activist group moving forward
Tone & Political Bias: Moderately Right Leaning
Why: The framing centers around Republican grievances, highlights alleged liberal bias in the ABA, and leans on language from GOP figures without significant counterpoints.
DOJ Ends ABA's Preferential Role
The U.S. Department of Justice has formally notified the American Bar Association (ABA) that it will no longer follow the group’s ratings process for judicial nominees. The move, announced Thursday, is the latest escalation in a long-standing conflict between Republican leaders and the nation's largest legal organization.
Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to ABA President William R. Bay, stating that the DOJ will stop giving the ABA what it called “special treatment” in the judicial selection process.
“Accordingly, while the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations, there is no justification for treating the ABA differently,” Bondi wrote.
End of Privileged Access
Historically, the ABA has had early access to nominee information, sometimes before nominations were publicly announced. That access allowed the ABA to conduct confidential reviews and issue early ratings on the qualifications of potential judges.
The DOJ’s new position means:
The ABA will no longer receive early notice of judicial nominees.
Nominees will not complete ABA questionnaires or sit for interviews.
The Office of Legal Policy will no longer require nominees to submit waivers granting the ABA access to confidential information.
This policy change effectively reduces the ABA's role to that of any outside advocacy group with opinions on judicial matters.
Background of the Conflict
The ABA, which boasts a membership of over 400,000 legal professionals, has long played a role in evaluating the qualifications of federal judicial nominees. Though officially nonpartisan, the organization has faced accusations of bias—particularly from Republican lawmakers—over its perceived left-leaning tendencies.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, previously described the ABA as a “radical left-wing advocacy group,” citing its support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as evidence of partisan influence.
This skepticism has grown stronger in recent years. Earlier in 2025, Republican members of the Senate committee on judicial nominations wrote to the ABA, stating they would no longer consider the group’s ratings in their decision-making process.
A Return to Past Republican Practice
This is not the first time a Republican administration has distanced itself from the ABA:
George W. Bush’s administration ended the practice of giving the ABA early access to judicial nominees.
Donald Trump’s administration, during his first term, also rejected ABA involvement in its nomination process.
Now, under Bondi’s leadership as Attorney General, the Justice Department is taking a firm stance to formalize that exclusion again.
ABA Still Free to Comment
While the DOJ’s letter removes any privileged status for the ABA, the association is still permitted to publicly comment on nominees. However, such commentary will now be treated similarly to opinions from other legal or activist groups. The DOJ emphasized that this change aims to ensure fairness and neutrality in the judicial vetting process.
Context of Ratings Controversy
Critics of the ABA argue that its ratings have historically favored nominees from Democratic administrations while rating Republican picks more harshly. This has led to increasing distrust from conservatives, despite the ABA’s stated goal of impartiality.
The decision to cut ties aligns with broader Republican efforts to decentralize the influence of traditional gatekeepers in the legal and judicial systems, particularly those viewed as ideologically biased.
Commentaires