Bondi Says Lawyer’s Group Too Biased to Vet Trump Judicial Picks

WASHINGTON — U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday told the American Bar Association that the president’s judicial nominees will no longer sit for interviews with nor respond to questionnaires from the organization.

For years, the bar association, which describes itself as the largest voluntary association of lawyers in the world, played a key role in vetting nominees dating back to the Eisenhower administration.

But the relationship between the White House and the ABA has soured in the 21st Century.

It was then-President George W. Bush who in 2001 broke with decades of tradition by not sharing nominee’s names with the ABA ahead of their consideration by the U.S. Senate, and President Trump did the same during his first term.

Then, to the surprise of many, the Biden administration in February 2021 told the bar association it would not restore the group’s quasi-official gatekeeper role.

That move was a first for a Democratic president. 

Though the Obama administration had restored the association’s role in 2009, the president was reportedly routinely angry over the fact the bar group’s peer-review system repeatedly gave “not qualified” ratings to his nominees who were women or part of a racial minority.

With that as context, a number of progressive groups backed Biden’s decision to continue the policy of the last two Republican administrations, seeing it as a sign that his White House was determined to diversify the federal bench.

In her letter, Bondi acknowledged the ABA’s former role in vetting nominees.

“In some administrations, the ABA received notice of nominees before a nomination was announced to the public. Some administrations would even decide whether to nominate an individual based on a rating assigned by the ABA,” Bondi wrote.

This “special treatment” and “special access to judicial nominees” came with a measure of trust, she suggested.

“Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations,” Bondi said.

For the record, the bar association’s vetting process has historically been carried out by a standing committee of 15 lawyers who are appointed by the organization’s president to staggered three-year terms.

It issues ratings for nominees ranging from “well qualified,” “qualified” or “not qualified” based on interviews with the nominee’s colleagues about his or her competence, temperament and integrity.

Like past Republican administration’s, Bondi’s concern is a perceived bias against conservative nominees.

“The ABA’s steadfast refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism from Congress, the administration, and the academy, is disquieting,” the attorney general wrote.

“Accordingly, while the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations, there is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so,” she said.

“Specifically, the Office of Legal Policy will no longer direct nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to nonpublic information, including bar records. Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA,” Bondi added.

An official with the bar association said it has seen the letter in the press and on social media, but not formally received it.

As a result, the ABA has not released a formal statement in response at this time.

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and on X @DanMcCue