The Department of Justice has officially ended its decades-long relationship with the American Bar Association's judicial nominee rating system, citing alleged liberal bias in the organization's evaluation process. Attorney General Pam Bondi delivered the formal notification to the ABA on Thursday in a letter that marks a significant shift in how the Trump administration will handle judicial nominations.

According to Fox News, the decision comes after mounting Republican criticism that the ABA's evaluation system "invariably and demonstrably" favors nominees put forth by Democratic administrations. The letter, sent by Bondi to ABA President William R. Bay, was previewed exclusively to Fox News.

The move represents an escalation in a long-running dispute between Republican administrations and the nation's largest legal professional organization, which has approximately 400,000 members, including lawyers, law students, and paralegals.

Special access privileges revoked

"For several decades, the American Bar Association has received special treatment and enjoyed special access to judicial nominees," Bondi stated in her letter. "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."

The DOJ letter makes clear that judicial nominees will no longer be directed to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to non-public information, including bar records. Additionally, nominees will not respond to ABA questionnaires or participate in interviews with the organization.

While the ABA remains free to comment on judicial nominations alongside other organizations, the Justice Department will no longer grant it the privileged position it has historically held in the nomination 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 wrote.

Republican criticism intensifies

The Trump administration's decision follows actions earlier this year by several Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who informed the ABA they planned to ignore its rating system when evaluating judicial nominees.

Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has been particularly vocal in his criticism, previously describing the ABA as a "radical left-wing advocacy group." Other Republican committee members have attacked the organization for embracing what they characterize as "woke initiatives," particularly pointing to its implementation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

This sentiment has been echoed throughout Republican circles, with critics arguing the ABA's evaluation process unfairly disadvantages conservative judicial nominees while favoring those with more liberal judicial philosophies.

Historical precedent for separation

The current break with the ABA continues a pattern established by previous Republican administrations. President George W. Bush ended the practice of giving the ABA early access to judicial nominees during his administration.

President Trump also declined to provide the ABA with special access during his first term, making this latest move a continuation of that approach rather than an entirely new policy. The decision aligns with the administration's broader efforts to reshape the federal judiciary with conservative appointees.

A source from the American Bar Association told Fox News that while the organization has received Bondi's letter, they are not offering immediate comment on the matter but may do so in the future.

Impact on judicial nomination process

The Justice Department's decision effectively eliminates the ABA's privileged role in evaluating federal judicial candidates before their nominations are made public. This change streamlines the nomination process for the Trump administration while removing what Republicans have long viewed as a biased hurdle.

The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has traditionally evaluated nominees based on professional qualifications, including integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. Ratings of "Well Qualified," "Qualified," or "Not Qualified" have often influenced the confirmation process, though their impact has diminished under Republican administrations.

With this formal separation, the Trump administration signals its intent to pursue judicial nominations without deferring to ABA evaluations, potentially accelerating the placement of conservative judges throughout the federal court system.