Shocker: DOJ Cuts Off ABA from Trump Nominees—Here’s Why It Matters

The American Bar Association (ABA) is firing back at Attorney General Pam Bondi’s latest directive, which effectively ends the ABA’s long‑standing role in vetting President Trump’s judicial nominees. In a blistering June 10 letter, ABA President William Bay described the action as “deeply disturbing” and urged Bondi to rethink the decision.

What the ABA Said

Bay, writing on behalf of the ABA’s national Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, called the decision “surprising and disappointing,” warning that it will reduce transparency in the judicial nominations process.

Since 1953, the ABA has evaluated federal judicial nominees—rating them as “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.” This confidential system has helped inform Senate confirmation hearings across administrations.

Bondi’s Argument

Bondi asserts that the ABA is politically biased, disproportionately favoring Democratic nominees. In her letter, she wrote that the organization “no longer functions as a fair arbiter” and accused it of delivering skewed ratings.

As a result, her department will no longer require Trump’s judicial contenders to complete ABA questionnaires, nor will it arrange for access to their bar and disciplinary records.

Why This Matters

• Transparency at risk – The ABA’s deep vetting has long reassured the public and Senate that nominees meet basic qualifications for lifetime judicial roles.

• Judicial consistency – Over the past 20 years, the ABA rated more than 96% of nominees—regardless of their political leanings—as “Qualified” or “Well Qualified,” while giving some of Trump’s picks a “Not Qualified” rating.

• Deepening political divide – Critics argue Bondi’s move intensifies partisan tension over court picks, with Democrats warning that checks on judicial fitness are being eroded.

What Comes Next

The ABA is urging Bondi to reverse her decision so the vetting process can continue—either at nomination or immediately afterward. For now, Bondi has stood firm, but legal experts say sidelining the ABA could hamper future nominees by removing a trusted non-governmental filter.