The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has decided to cut ties with the American Bar Association (ABA) over concerns of bias. This decision means that the ABA will no longer have access to private information, such as bar records, related to judicial nominees.
The ABA is known for its rating system for judicial nominees, which labels them as “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.” However, Bondi and others have criticized the ABA for having a liberal bias, arguing that this affects the fairness of its ratings. For example, the ABA has historically rated several conservative nominees unfavorably, including Judge Robert Bork, who received a “Not Qualified” rating.
In a letter to ABA President William Bay, Bondi expressed her concerns about the organization’s reliability as an impartial evaluator of judicial qualifications. She pointed out that the ABA has been allowed special access to nominees in the past, sometimes even receiving advance notice of nominations. However, she believes that the ABA’s ratings tend to favor nominees from Democratic administrations, which she finds troubling.
Bondi stated that the ABA has not addressed the criticisms regarding its bias, leading to this new policy. Moving forward, nominees will not provide waivers for the ABA to access non-public information, nor will they respond to ABA questionnaires or participate in interviews with the organization.
This shift has sparked discussions about the role of the ABA in the judicial nomination process and whether it can maintain its credibility moving forward. The Justice Department’s move reflects a broader concern about fairness and impartiality in the evaluation of judicial nominees.