Data doesn't support DOJ claims of bias in judicial ratings process, ABA President Bay says
The ABA is rebutting U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s claims of bias in its long-standing efforts to evaluate federal judicial nominees.
In a June 10 letter sent to Bondi, ABA President Bill Bay said the association was “surprised and disappointed” that the Department of Justice decided to block the Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary’s access to judicial nominees and restrict its access to information that is relevant to their evaluations.
“During the past 18 administrations (including the first Trump administration), the standing committee has been a key evaluator of the professional qualifications of judicial nominees,” Bay wrote in the letter. “In these seven decades, presidents and senators have found value in having one of the largest voluntary associations for lawyers and legal professionals in the world present an evaluation of the qualifications of judicial nominees for their review.”
Bondi announced in late May that the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy will not ask judicial nominees to provide waivers that allow the ABA to access their bar records and other nonpublic information. Bondi also said nominees will not respond to the ABA’s questionnaires or be interviewed by the association.
“Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations,” Bondi said in a letter that was posted on X.
Since President Dwight D. Eisenhower first requested the ABA’s participation in 1953, the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has assessed judicial candidates on three metrics: professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament. The three standards are further explained in an in-depth backgrounder on the standing committee’s policies.
The evaluation is nonpartisan; no candidate is assessed for their “philosophy, political affiliation or ideology.” The standing committee also never suggests or recommends judicial candidates. The standing committee has only three ratings: well qualified, qualified and not qualified.
Bay pointed out in his response to Bondi that data does not support any claims of bias in the ABA’s judicial ratings process.
The standing committee has issued well qualified or qualified ratings to nearly 97% of the rated nominees in each administration—including the first Trump administration—in the last two decades, Bay said. He also noted the standing committee rated all three of President Donald Trump’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court as well qualified.
“These restrictive efforts by the Justice Department reduce transparency and deprive the Senate of information it needs to meet its constitutionally required duty to provide advice and consent to the president concerning nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary,” Bay wrote. “Restricting access to information and nominees for lifetime appointments also undermines the public’s confidence in the judiciary.”
Bay asked Bondi to reconsider her decision and to provide the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary with at least the same access to information it has had since Trump first assumed office in 2017.
Prior to President George W. Bush’s tenure, the norm was for the standing committee to complete its evaluation before the official nomination. Bush instead chose to announce his judicial nominees before the standing committee evaluated them.
Trump followed suit during his first term, as did President Joe Biden.
“The standing committee’s impartial peer evaluations are unique and have consistently provided a significant source of information considered by senators from both parties that is not otherwise available during the confirmation process,” Bay also wrote in his letter.
An ABA news release with additional information is here.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
