In a bold move underscoring growing concerns over ideological influence in judicial vetting, the Justice Department—now under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi—has severed the American Bar Association’s (ABA) privileged access to judicial nominees and their confidential information. The decision marks a sharp shift in how the federal government will engage with what was once considered the gold standard of legal credentialing.
For decades, the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary wielded significant influence, using its internal rating system to assess the qualifications of judicial nominees. These ratings—“Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified”—have shaped confirmation battles and even derailed nominations. But critics argue that this influence has long been tainted by political bias.
The American Bar Association has lost its way, and we do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees.@TheJusticeDept will no longer give the ABA the access they’ve taken for granted. pic.twitter.com/ViqX9IRa7w
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) May 29, 2025
Bondi’s letter to ABA President William Bay was explicit: the ABA’s partisan leanings, particularly its alignment with progressive causes and Democratic candidates, have disqualified it from receiving non-public information.
"The ABA has a history of taking liberal positions on issues including abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and the Second Amendment," Bondi wrote, echoing longstanding conservative critiques.
The numbers add weight to the accusation. In 2019, five of the ABA committee’s 15 members had donated to Barack Obama, three to Hillary Clinton—and none to any Republican presidential nominee between 2008 and 2016.
The organization has also been accused of rating conservative legal luminaries—like Judge Robert Bork, Richard Posner, Edith Jones, and William Pryor—unfairly low. This track record, critics claim, reflects a pattern of ideological bias rather than objective evaluation.
Bondi's decision also ends a quiet privilege enjoyed by the ABA: early and exclusive access to judicial candidates. In some past administrations, the ABA was notified of potential nominees before the public—and in certain cases, even before the nominees themselves. That era is now over.
“While the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations,” Bondi emphasized, “there is no justification for treating the ABA differently.”
The Department of Justice will no longer direct nominees to grant the ABA access to confidential records, nor will nominees be required to respond to ABA-prepared questionnaires or participate in their interviews.