Pam bondi ends bar association role in trump judicial picks

The Department of Justice has announced that it will be curtailing the ability of the American Bar Association (ABA) to rate candidates for tenure in the federal judiciary. This will hinder

the ABA’s ability to vet nominations put forth by President Donald Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a letter to the ABA president William Bay on Thursday, May 29, that she is

cutting off the association’s access to non-public information about Trump nominees. Bondi referred to the non-partisan membership organization as an “activist” group. Advertisement

Advertisement “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,” said Bondi, accusing the ABA of having “bias” in its ratings process. “There is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and

the Department of Justice will not do so.” Bondi went on to say that judicial nominees will no longer need to provide waivers to allow the ABA access to non-public information, nor will

they respond to questionnaires or sit for interviews with the association. In a subsequent social media post, Bondi doubled down, saying: “The American Bar Association has lost its way, and

we do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees. The Justice Department will no longer give the ABA the access they’ve taken for granted.” Stephen Gillers, a professor of

law at New York University, says that this move from the Department of Justice carries “slight” significance, calling the motivation for the announcement “performative and symbolic.” “The

ABA can still evaluate nominees based on the public record and information submitted to the judiciary committee,” he says, noting that the difference lies in the fact the ABA will not be

able to give the Justice Department its evaluation before the nomination is made. The move against the ABA came a day after Trump announced six new judicial nominees, which included top

Justice Department official Emil Bove being put forward to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said that Bove “will

end the weaponization of Justice, restore the rule of law, and do anything else that is necessary to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” Bove defended Trump during his hush-money trial, during which

the President was convicted on 34 counts. Trump also nominated Kyle Dudek, John Guard, Jordan E. Pratt, and Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe to serve as Judges on the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Florida, and Ed Artau to serve as a Judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The President has previously threatened to revoke

the ABA’s status as the federally-recognized accreditor of law schools in an Executive Order signed on April 24. As part of his wide-scale crackdown on DEI efforts, Trump said that the ABA

has required law schools to demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion, something which he says is a "discriminatory requirement" and that "similar unlawful mandates

must be permanently eradicated." Critics have recently raised concerns over current practices at the Department of Justice. “I think what's happening in the Department of Justice

right now is that it's being transformed into Donald Trump's personal law firm," said Liz Oyer, the DOJ’s former pardon attorney. "The Attorney General has made it clear

that directions are coming from the very top, from the President, and she is there to do his bidding.” READ MORE: _Democrats Grill AG Pick Pam Bondi Over Whether She Can Defy Trump_ WHAT IS

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND WHAT DOES IT DO? Founded in 1878, the ABA works on the “commitment to set the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation,” according to the

organization’s website. Its main three areas of focus revolve around advocating for the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, as well as advancing the rule of law. It

is the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary that typically oversees and conducts the judicial nominee vetting process, something it has done since 1953. According to the ABA, the

committee “makes a unique contribution to the vetting process by conducting a thorough peer assessment of each nominee’s professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament.” The

organization asserts that these assessments are non-partisan, providing the Senate and sitting Administration with “confidential assessments of the nominee’s professional qualifications.”

Gillers echoes this, highlighting how the ABA does not look at ideology during its evaluation of nominees, but instead at competence. “Evaluations are based on the nominees’ experience and

knowledge, not their positions on controversial issues that could come before the courts,” he says.