American Bar Association Challenges DOJ Limitations on Federal Judicial Nominee Reviews

The American Bar Association (ABA) is contesting the Trump administration's decision to exclude the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary from evaluating the president's federal judicial nominees, a role it has fulfilled for over 70 years. ABA President William R. Bay expressed surprise and disappointment in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, arguing that the Justice Department's restrictions would reduce transparency in the confirmation process and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Bondi justified the move by claiming the ABA is biased, favoring nominees from Democratic administrations and no longer functioning as a fair arbiter. The ABA refutes these claims, highlighting that its committee rated all three of Trump's Supreme Court nominees as well qualified and that its evaluations have consistently been impartial and trusted by senators from both parties. The Justice Department's new policy also prevents judicial nominees from providing waivers to the ABA for accessing nonpublic information and disallows nominee interviews, further limiting the organization's ability to vet candidates. ABA leaders warn that these changes could impair the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional advice and consent role concerning lifetime judicial appointments.