The Silent Gavel: DOJ Cuts Ties with Secret Gatekeeper of the Bench
DOJ Cuts Ties with ABA Over Judicial Nominee Ratings, Citing Political Bias
In a major shake-up of a long-standing tradition, the Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will no longer recognize the American Bar Association’s role in evaluating federal judicial nominees. The decision, revealed in a formal letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to ABA President William R. Bay, signals a decisive break from decades of cooperation between the DOJ and the legal organization.
Bondi’s letter accused the ABA of systemic bias, stating that its evaluation process has “invariably and demonstrably” favored candidates nominated by Democratic administrations. As a result, she wrote, the Department will no longer offer the ABA early access to judicial nominees, nor will it permit the association to conduct interviews or receive responses to its customary questionnaires.
“For too long, the ABA has enjoyed privileged access to judicial nominees,” Bondi wrote. “In some cases, the group was informed of nominations before the public — a level of influence no other activist organization has ever held.”
According to Bondi, that era is now over. “The American Bar Association is free to comment on nominees like any other private group,” she added, “but it will no longer receive preferential treatment from the Department of Justice.”
The decision comes amid ongoing tension between the Biden-era holdovers in legal circles and the current Trump administration. Republicans have long criticized the ABA for what they describe as a liberal bias, especially in how it rates judicial candidates. The association’s past assessments of Trump’s nominees have frequently drawn fire from conservatives. During Trump’s first term, the ABA labeled at least ten of his nominees as “not qualified,” though eight of those were confirmed to lifetime appointments by the Senate.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to condemn Bondi’s move. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, described the decision as “blatantly political” and warned that it undermines the integrity of the nomination process.
“This is a seismic change,” Durbin said in a statement Friday. “The American Bar Association has served as a nonpartisan watchdog for decades. Eliminating their input is an effort to streamline unqualified or biased nominees into the federal judiciary.”
Durbin also argued that the decision opens the door for judicial picks with insufficient experience or questionable records to receive lifetime appointments without adequate scrutiny.
However, critics of the ABA point to its history of opposing Republican judicial appointments and note that the organization has often aligned with progressive policy positions. Earlier this year, the ABA issued a statement condemning political attacks on judges who blocked aspects of the Trump administration’s policy agenda, calling it part of a “disconcerting pattern.”
“If this administration disagrees with a court’s ruling, the judge becomes a target,” the ABA said in its statement. “Likewise, attorneys representing unpopular clients or causes are also publicly criticized.”
The Justice Department’s decision to sideline the ABA comes as President Trump pushes forward with a new round of judicial appointments, including the controversial selection of Emil Bove to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Bove, who previously served as acting deputy attorney general, drew national attention after ordering federal prosecutors to drop public corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
The Judiciary Committee is set to hold its first confirmation hearings for Trump’s latest judicial picks next week. While a dozen nominees have been named, the committee has not yet announced a list of witnesses for the hearings. The exclusion of the ABA from the process is likely to be a major point of discussion during the proceedings.
For now, the DOJ’s move marks a significant change in the way federal judges are vetted, removing one of the most powerful gatekeepers from the equation. It’s a shift that could have lasting implications not only for the balance of the federal bench but also for how judicial independence is perceived by the public.
While Bondi insists the change is about restoring fairness, opponents argue it weakens safeguards designed to ensure legal competence and impartiality on the nation’s courts. As both sides prepare for what promises to be a contentious confirmation season, the battle over who gets to decide who sits on the bench is far from over.