The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi's directive, has formally terminated its longstanding cooperative relationship with the American Bar Association (ABA) in the vetting of judicial nominees. This significant policy shift was announced on Thursday, aligning with the Trump administration's broader stance of limiting the ABA's influence over judicial selections.
Historically, the ABA played a central role in assessing the qualifications of proposed nominees for the federal judiciary, offering ratings that could significantly impact the confirmation process. However, the DOJ has now accused the ABA of displaying a partisan bias, favoring nominees from Democratic presidents over those proposed by Republican administrations. In a letter to ABA President William Bay, Bondi articulated that the ABA "no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications," effectively stripping the organization of its privileged access to non-public information about judicial candidates.
Bondi's communication to the ABA outlined that the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy would no longer request nominees to provide waivers for the release of confidential bar records to the ABA. Additionally, nominees are to refrain from filling out ABA questionnaires or engaging in interviews. The move replicates the approach taken during President Trump's first term, where cooperation with the ABA was similarly constrained.
Data provided by Ballotpedia illustrates the contentious nature of ABA ratings during Trump's tenure, with a notably higher number of nominees deemed "not qualified" compared to previous administrations. This has been a point of discord, with critics arguing that the ABA's assessment process may be skewed by ideological leanings.
The ABA's response to the DOJ's recent decision was not immediately available, but the implications of this move are already being debated. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat and prominent member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has vocally opposed the DOJ's action. Durbin lambasted the decision as overtly political and without merit, cautioning that it may lead to the confirmation of nominees lacking in judicial temperament and experience, with lasting adverse effects on the American judicial system.
The Trump administration's confrontational posture towards the ABA extends beyond the vetting process. Past actions have included an executive order from President Trump instructing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to reevaluate the ABA's role in accrediting law schools. Furthermore, the ABA has engaged in legal battles with the government over funding cuts that have adversely impacted its international training programs and a Justice Department initiative aiding domestic and sexual violence victims.
In one notable lawsuit, a federal judge ruled that the government's targeting of the ABA violated the organization's First Amendment rights. Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of President Obama, noted the apparent retaliatory nature of the funding cancellation, lacking substantive performance-related justification. The ruling underscored the tension between the ABA and the current administration, a conflict that has now escalated with the DOJ's latest directive.
