Pam Bondi Takes on the American Bar Association: Former Florida Attorney General’s Scathing Letter Ignites a National Legal Firestorm

WASHINGTON—In a sharp escalation of the Trump administration’s long-running feud with the American Bar Association (ABA), Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday informed the 147-year-old lawyers’ group that the Department of Justice will end its decades-old practice of allowing the ABA to confidentially review and rate potential federal judges before their official nomination. Bondi’s letter, first obtained by multiple outlets, accuses the ABA of “institutional bias against originalist and textualist nominees” and says its involvement “no longer serves the interests of the executive branch or the American people.” Effective immediately, the DOJ will not share non-public background files or grant early access to candidates’ FBI reports, a privilege the ABA has enjoyed—under administrations of both parties—since the Eisenhower era. WHY THE DOJ IS CUTTING TIES • Conservative activists have long argued that the ABA’s confidential ratings tilt left, labeling Republican picks “Not Qualified” at higher rates than Democratic nominees. • The flash point came this month when the ABA publicly released a draft “Not Qualified” rating for Emil Bove, a former federal prosecutor tapped for the 2nd Circuit, before his paperwork reached the Senate, enraging White House Counsel’s Office staff, according to a senior administration official familiar with the deliberations. • Bondi’s letter calls the leak “proof positive” that the ABA “functions today as just another special-interest lobby.” REACTION FROM THE ABA AND LEGAL COMMUNITY ABA President Mary Smith responded within hours, saying the group “stands by our nonpartisan evaluations” and warning that bypassing independent vetting “risks sowing uncertainty about the caliber and impartiality of lifetime judges.” She reiterated that the ABA has unanimously rated more than 97 percent of past nominees at least “Qualified.” Progressive legal groups condemned the move as an attempt to “ram through ideologues,” while conservative organizations such as the Federalist Society celebrated the decision as “long overdue.” Several Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats signaled they will place greater weight on their own questionnaires and witness testimony during confirmation hearings. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT • Without the ABA’s early-stage input, background investigations will flow directly from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy to the White House and then to the Senate, potentially shortening the confirmation timeline by weeks. • The ABA can still issue ratings, but only after nominees are made public, limiting its practical influence on who ultimately reaches the bench. • Capitol Hill staffers say they expect a surge of nominations in coming weeks as the administration races to fill vacancies before the election year. IMPACT ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY The Trump administration has already set records for appellate confirmations and is openly aiming to “flip” the ideologically balanced 9th Circuit. Legal scholars note that sidelining the ABA could speed appointments of younger, staunchly conservative judges whose rulings will shape U.S. law for generations. SEO KEY TAKEAWAYS Pam Bondi’s decision to bar the American Bar Association from vetting federal judicial nominees marks a pivotal moment in the tug-of-war over how America’s courts are staffed. Critics say the move threatens quality control; supporters believe it frees the process from perceived liberal bias. Either way, the Bondi-ABA clash is poised to redefine judicial nominations, Senate confirmation battles, and the future complexion of the federal bench.