The American Bar Association asked the Department of Justice on Tuesday to reconsider its historic decision to shut the organization out of the judicial nomination process and insisted it rates potential judges fairly.
ABA President William Bay wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi that he was ‘surprised and disappointed’ by her decision, which Bondi revealed in a letter two weeks ago.
‘It is deeply disturbing that the Justice Department has decided to restrict access to judicial nominees without justification or basis,’ Bay wrote.
Bondi accused the ABA, which comprises hundreds of thousands of lawyers and other legal professionals, of favoring Democratic administrations’ nominees and refusing to ‘fix the bias in its ratings.’
The ABA has for seven decades been involved in rating presidents’ nominees to serve as judges in the district and appellate courts and the Supreme Court.
An ABA committee rates potential judges as ‘well qualified,’ ‘qualified’ or ‘not qualified’ based on their experience level, legal writings, and dozens of interviews with the candidates’ colleagues and peers.
Bay noted the ABA rated all three of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees as ‘well qualified’ and that it has given ‘well qualified’ or ‘qualified’ ratings to at least 97% of rated nominees for the last two decades.
The ABA has also received nonpublic information about nominees, including their bar records, through DOJ waivers. Bondi said the department will no longer provide those.
Bay’s remarks were the latest development in a protracted legal fight that Trump and Republicans have waged against the ABA and big law over allegations they are plagued by bias. The ABA has on occasion promoted liberal initiatives, including abortion access, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the LGBTQ agenda. Bay said the rating committee is walled off from the rest of the organization.
‘The Standing Committee’s work is insulated from all other activities of the ABA to ensure its independence and impartiality,’ Bay wrote.
Presidents nominate federal judges, and the Senate votes on them. The judges, once confirmed, serve lifetime appointments.
Presidents and the Senate have for decades included the ABA in the nomination process, but Trump and President George W. Bush declined to give the ABA a first look at potential nominees before announcing them.
Former President Joe Biden continued Trump’s practice but clarified that he valued the ABA’s ratings and only gave it post-nomination access to nominee information to save time.
A DOJ spokesman said in response to Bay’s letter: ‘It’s clear that the American Bar Association has lost its way and no longer treats all nominees in a fair and impartial manner.’
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who leads the Senate panel tasked with vetting potential judges, said in response to Bondi’s decision that it was ‘hardly surprising’ and that the legal organization has ‘consistently taken partisan stances on political issues.’ Grassley noted the ABA could still weigh in on nominees independently of the administration.
‘The Judiciary Committee will still accept letters from the ABA, the same as we do for all outside organizations, but it doesn’t make sense for this administration to be giving favored access to an organization that’s consistently shown political bias,’ Grassley said.
Grassley’s Democratic counterpart, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in a statement online that the ABA’s ratings process was objective.
‘The Trump Administration is clearly just trying to cover for unqualified and extreme nominees,’ Durbin said.
Among those once rated as ‘not qualified’ by the ABA was DOJ chief of staff Chad Mizelle’s wife, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who serves as a federal judge in Florida. The rating was due to her lack of experience, as the ABA’s criteria for federal judges includes 12 years of experience practicing law.
The ABA had mixed reviews for Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, ultimately giving him its mid-level ‘qualified’ rating.