Hold onto your gavels, folks—the U.S. Department of Justice just dropped a bombshell that’s shaking up the judicial nomination game.
On Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a pointed letter to the American Bar Association (ABA), declaring that the DOJ will no longer play ball with the ABA’s ratings process for judicial nominees. This isn’t just a policy tweak; it’s a full-on divorce from decades of tradition.
Fox News reported that the DOJ’s decision to cut ties with the ABA stems from claims of bias in the ratings system, effectively ending the group’s privileged role in vetting judicial candidates.
The conflict isn’t exactly new, as Republican administrations, including those under George W. Bush and Donald Trump’s first term, have previously pushed back against the ABA’s early access to nominees.
But Bondi’s letter, exclusively shared with Fox News, takes it a step further by stripping the ABA of any “special treatment.” It’s a bold move, signaling that the current administration isn’t messing around.
The crux of the DOJ’s argument is that the ABA’s process unfairly leans toward candidates from Democratic administrations.
Bondi’s letter to ABA President William R. Bay didn’t mince words, alleging the ratings are “invariably and demonstrably” skewed. Well, turns out decades of cozy access might not survive a hard look under the microscope.
Historically, some administrations even let the ABA peek at nominees before the public got wind of them. Others went as far as hinging nomination decisions on the ABA’s stamp of approval or disapproval. That kind of influence is now officially off the table.
Under the new policy, the ABA will be treated like any other advocacy group, free to comment but without the VIP pass. Nominees won’t be filling out ABA questionnaires or sitting for interviews, either. It’s a cold shoulder that’s hard to miss.
“Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA,” Bondi stated flatly. If that’s not a door slamming shut, I don’t know what is. The message is clear: the ABA’s days of playing gatekeeper are over.
Adding to the shift, the DOJ has scrapped an Office of Legal Policy rule that once required nominees to provide waivers for the ABA to access private records like bar information.
That’s one less hoop for candidates to jump through, and one less lever for the ABA to pull. It’s a streamlining that many conservatives will likely cheer.
Meanwhile, several Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, tasked with vetting nominees, had already signaled their disdain for the ABA’s ratings earlier in 2025. They flat-out told the organization they’d be ignoring its evaluations. Talk about a vote of no confidence.
Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, didn’t hold back, calling the ABA a “radical left-wing advocacy group.” That’s a spicy label, but it echoes a broader Republican critique that the ABA has veered too far into progressive territory with initiatives like diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. For many on the right, that’s a red flag waving high.
The ABA, a massive voluntary legal association founded in the late 1800s with over 400,000 members, including lawyers and law students, isn’t exactly a small player. Yet, its embrace of what some call a progressive agenda has drawn consistent fire from GOP lawmakers. It’s a clash of values that’s hard to ignore.
A source from the ABA, speaking to Fox News, acknowledged seeing Bondi’s letter but offered no immediate response, promising a statement later. That silence speaks volumes for now. One has to wonder if they’re scrambling to figure out how to regain lost ground.
At the end of the day, this decision marks a seismic shift in how judicial nominations will play out, aligning with a broader Republican effort to challenge institutions perceived as biased.
It’s not just about the ABA—it’s about reclaiming control over a process many feel has been tilted for too long. And if history tells us anything, actions like these tend to have ripple effects.