The American Bar Association recently sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi rebutting claims of bias in the association’s longstanding processes of evaluating judicial nominees.
The letter expressed disappointment and surprise that the Justice Department has decided to block access by the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary (“Standing Committee”) to judicial nominees and restrict access of the Standing Committee to information that is relevant in evaluating judicial nominees.
For the last seven decades through 18 administrations (seven Republican presidents and six Democratic presidents), the Standing Committee has conducted extensive peer evaluations of the professional qualifications of a president’s nominees to become federal judges. The results of those evaluations are offered for consideration during the confirmation process.
A letter from Attorney General Bondi changes this process, asserting claims of bias in the ratings process. Historical data does not support the letter’s claims.
The Standing Committee has issued Well Qualified or Qualified ratings to 96.9% of the rated nominees in each administration during the last two decades, including the first Trump administration.
It rated all three of President Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States as Well Qualified.
ABA President Bay said that the “restrictive efforts reduce transparency and deprive the Senate of necessary 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.
Restricting access to information and candidates for lifetime appointments also undermines the public’s confidence in the judiciary.”
In the letter, Bay urges Bondi to reconsider the DOJ’s decision to change the longstanding procedures in the judicial confirmation process and give the Standing Committee at least the same access to information on a post-nomination basis that it has had since President Trump first assumed office in 2017.
Although the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary is a part of the ABA, its operations are separate and independent, and its process is transparent.
The committee’s work is insulated from all other activities of the ABA to ensure its independence and impartiality.
The ratings of nominees are confidential and not shared outside of the committee until after they are presented to the White House, Department of Justice, and the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Not even the officers, leaders or members of the ABA know the ratings until they are made public.
In the letter Bay notes that “unlike other organizations, the Standing Committee does not select or even suggest the nominees to federal judgeships as doing so would compromise its independent evaluative function, and it does not consider a nominee’s philosophy, political affiliation or ideology as criteria for its rating.
“Its role is strictly advisory. The White House and Senate are free to consider the Standing Committee’s rating of a nominee or to disregard it completely, as has been done at times over the years, including during the first Trump administration.”
The letter expressed disappointment and surprise that the Justice Department has decided to block access by the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary (“Standing Committee”) to judicial nominees and restrict access of the Standing Committee to information that is relevant in evaluating judicial nominees.
For the last seven decades through 18 administrations (seven Republican presidents and six Democratic presidents), the Standing Committee has conducted extensive peer evaluations of the professional qualifications of a president’s nominees to become federal judges. The results of those evaluations are offered for consideration during the confirmation process.
A letter from Attorney General Bondi changes this process, asserting claims of bias in the ratings process. Historical data does not support the letter’s claims.
The Standing Committee has issued Well Qualified or Qualified ratings to 96.9% of the rated nominees in each administration during the last two decades, including the first Trump administration.
It rated all three of President Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States as Well Qualified.
ABA President Bay said that the “restrictive efforts reduce transparency and deprive the Senate of necessary 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.
Restricting access to information and candidates for lifetime appointments also undermines the public’s confidence in the judiciary.”
In the letter, Bay urges Bondi to reconsider the DOJ’s decision to change the longstanding procedures in the judicial confirmation process and give the Standing Committee at least the same access to information on a post-nomination basis that it has had since President Trump first assumed office in 2017.
Although the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary is a part of the ABA, its operations are separate and independent, and its process is transparent.
The committee’s work is insulated from all other activities of the ABA to ensure its independence and impartiality.
The ratings of nominees are confidential and not shared outside of the committee until after they are presented to the White House, Department of Justice, and the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Not even the officers, leaders or members of the ABA know the ratings until they are made public.
In the letter Bay notes that “unlike other organizations, the Standing Committee does not select or even suggest the nominees to federal judgeships as doing so would compromise its independent evaluative function, and it does not consider a nominee’s philosophy, political affiliation or ideology as criteria for its rating.
“Its role is strictly advisory. The White House and Senate are free to consider the Standing Committee’s rating of a nominee or to disregard it completely, as has been done at times over the years, including during the first Trump administration.”
