The Department of Justice has cut off the American Bar Association from privileged access to judicial nominees, citing the group’s long-standing liberal bias. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the ABA will now be treated like any other activist organization.
Key Facts:
- Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the DOJ will no longer give the ABA access to non-public information about judicial nominees.
- The ABA has rated judicial candidates for decades using categories like “Well Qualified” and “Not Qualified.”
- Critics have accused the ABA of bias toward liberal nominees and discrimination against conservatives.
- Of 15 members on the ABA’s key committee in 2019, a majority had donated to Democratic candidates, none to Republican nominees.
- Going forward, judicial nominees will no longer sit for ABA interviews or fill out ABA-prepared questionnaires.
The Rest of The Story:
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s announcement marks a significant shift in how the DOJ handles judicial nominations.
For decades, the ABA received early access to nominees and their confidential records, often before the public was even aware a name was under consideration.
That privileged status has ended.
In her letter to ABA President William Bay, Bondi wrote, “The ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications.”
She emphasized the group’s persistent bias in favor of liberal nominees, saying, “There is no justification for treating the ABA differently from other activist organizations.”
Now, judicial nominees will be instructed not to share confidential bar records with the ABA, not to respond to its questionnaires, and not to participate in its interview process.
The American Bar Association has lost its way, and we do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees.@TheJusticeDept will no longer give the ABA the access they’ve taken for granted. pic.twitter.com/ViqX9IRa7w
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) May 29, 2025
Commentary:
This move has been a long time coming.
For years, conservatives have pointed out the left-leaning slant of the ABA, which positions itself as a neutral voice but consistently promotes liberal causes.
Bondi’s decision finally brings accountability to an organization that has long operated with undue influence in the judicial selection process.
The ABA’s track record speaks for itself.
Giving Judge Robert Bork a minority “Not Qualified” rating—despite his brilliance and originalist credentials—was one of many signs of bias.
The same goes for their reviews of legal minds like Posner and Pryor.
These aren’t fringe nominees; they are respected conservative scholars who were treated unfairly.
The fact that committee members donated heavily to Democrats and not a single Republican during critical election years tells us everything we need to know.
This isn’t a nonpartisan group—it’s a legal arm of the left.
No organization should be able to influence judicial picks behind closed doors without being held to the same standards as other lobbying groups.
The ABA has crossed that line, and this change ensures a level playing field moving forward.
For years, Republican administrations went along with the charade—perhaps out of tradition or fear of backlash.
But with the judiciary increasingly central to preserving constitutional freedoms, there’s no room for organizations that apply their standards unevenly.
Bondi deserves credit for calling it what it is: activism disguised as arbitration.
The left may be outraged, but the credibility the ABA once had has been self-eroded over decades of bias.
The Bottom Line:
The DOJ’s decision to sever the ABA’s privileged access is a bold, necessary correction.
An organization with clear ideological leanings should not be treated as a neutral evaluator of judicial nominees.
This change restores fairness and helps protect the integrity of the judicial appointment process.
\
Read Next
– Watchdog Claims ‘No Evidence’ Biden Knew About Key Climate Orders Signed by Autopen
– AI Company CEO Warns White Collar ‘Bloodbath’ Coming Soon, Says No One Taking Threat Seriously
– Harvard Hit from All Sides: Boston Demands Millions as Trump Cuts Billions
– No Work, No Problem: San Francisco Public Schools Redefine Failure as Success