Pam Bondi Curtails American Bar Association's Role in Vetting Trump's Judicial Nominees
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.
'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.'
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.'
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
For these Trump voters, a rubber-stamp Congress is a key demand
Advertisement And they reserved their purest aversion for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the solidly conservative former longtime party leader, whom they described alternately as an 'obstructionist' to Trump's agenda, a 'snake in the grass,' and a 'bowl of Jell-O' with no spine. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Their perspectives offered a striking contrast to the reception that many Republican lawmakers have confronted at raucous town halls throughout the country in recent months. The lawmakers have been grilled and booed by constituents at these events for supporting Trump's policies on tariffs, immigration and, most recently, the domestic policy bill that the GOP pushed through the House in May. And they help explain why most Republican lawmakers have put aside any reservations they may have on key issues and backed the president -- because a critical portion of their party's base is still demanding that they do so. Advertisement 'For loyal Trump voters, they're loving what they see as him 'doing something' and don't want congressional Republicans getting in the way of his agenda,' said Sarah Longwell, the anti-Trump Republican strategist who conducted the focus groups. 'And members of Congress have gotten that message loud and clear.' These voters represent only a piece of the electorate that Republicans must court in the run-up to midterm congressional elections in which their governing trifecta is on the line. Since Trump took office, GOP lawmakers have struggled to defend his executive actions and his efforts to dismantle the federal bureaucracy and unilaterally defund government programs, and to explain to their constituents why they are not doing more to challenge him. In Nebraska this past week, Representative Mike Flood faced an angry crowd grilling him on the Medicaid and food assistance cuts included in the domestic policy bill. And he admitted he had been unaware that the measure included a provision to limit the power of federal judges to hold people, including Trump administration officials, in contempt for disobeying court orders. But Longwell's sessions, videos of which were shared with The New York Times, were a reminder that there is still a powerful pull for Republicans to swallow whatever disagreements they may have with Trump and bow to what he wants. Since the beginning of this Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson, whose too-slim majority in the House leaves him little latitude to maneuver, has positioned himself less as the leader of the legislative branch and more as a junior partner to Trump. That stance is exactly what these voters, whom Longwell identified only by their first names and last initials to protect their privacy, said they liked about him. Advertisement Arthur M., a voter from Arizona, described Johnson as 'loyal,' adding, 'I'm not saying they should never have any other ideas of their own, but they certainly shouldn't have someone dissenting if you're trying to put an agenda through -- and that's what the Congress is.' Jeff B., a voter from Georgia, said Johnson always appeared to be 'in over his head.' But he did not see that as a negative. 'He's not the kind of guy like Mitch McConnell, who was pulling all the strings,' he said. 'He's struggling, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be. He looks like he's in over his head, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be.' The voters who participated in the focus groups, which were conducted May 16 and 19, had uniformly negative views of those House Republicans they viewed as 'rabble-rousers,' which they defined as anyone expressing an opinion that was not in sync with the White House. Jane H., a voter from Indiana, criticized her Congress member, Representative Victoria Spartz, an unpredictable lawmaker who often sides with the hard right, for being 'out of line' when she makes noises about opposing Trump's agenda. Gilbert W. from North Carolina held a similar view of Murkowski, who has routinely broken with her party to criticize Trump. 'Murkowski -- this woman's never found anything on the Republican side she really goes for,' he said, calling her a 'troublemaker.' In contrast, Allen K. from Arizona praised his Congress member, Representative Juan Ciscomani, for never making any waves. Advertisement 'Whatever Trump does, he'll say,' he said of Ciscomani, describing that as a positive. As for Senator John Thune, the new majority leader from South Dakota, he earned kudos mostly for not being McConnell. 'He's pressing Trump's agenda, it seems like,' Gilbert W. said. 'What else can you ask for?' Jane H., a three-time Trump voter, said, 'What I want to see is someone who will work hard and effectively to advance a conservative agenda, and to work closely with the White House to advance at this time Donald Trump's agenda. It's what the American people want, so that's what John Thune should be doing.' Many of the participants in the focus groups had only vague impressions of their own representatives, a reminder that to many voters, Congress remains a faceless institution of 535 mostly anonymous lawmakers about whom they don't have particularly strong feelings. That could help explain why most appeared to judge their elected officials almost exclusively according to how deferential they were to Trump, about whom they expressed potent -- and extremely positive -- sentiments. Asked for his opinions on Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Steve C., a voter from Michigan, said, 'I don't have an opinion on anyone specifically.' This article originally appeared in
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump to meet with Germany's Merz in Washington next week
President Trump is set to meet with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz next week in Washington, marking the first in-person meeting between the two leaders. Merz, the leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who was elected as Germany's leader in early March, is expected to visit Trump at the White House on Thursday, June 5, Germany government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said Saturday in a press release. The discussions between the two countries' leaders will focus on bilateral relations between the two, along with discussions around the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, developments in the Middle East and trade policy, according to Kornelius. A White House official confirmed the meeting details to The Hill on Saturday. Merz, similar to Trump, has been pushing for a ceasefire deal in the more than three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a meeting with Merz on Wednesday in Berlin. There, Merz said that Germany will bolster its backing of Ukraine as part of a more than $5.5 billion agreement, including sending over more military equipment and increasing weapons manufacturing in Kyiv. Germany's chancellor has clashed with members of Trump's administration over the country's government marking the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party as an 'extremist' political entity. 'Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That's not democracy—it's tyranny in disguise,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote earlier this month on social media platform X. 'What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election — but rather the establishment's deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.' Vice President Vance piled on, accusing the government of trying to 'destroy' AfD, which also considers tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk a strong supporter. Merz has pushed back on Trump administration's officials meddling in Germany's domestic politics. 'We have largely stayed out of the American election campaign in recent years, and that includes me personally,' Merz said in an interview with Axel Springer Global Reporters Network that was published on May 7. He added that he told U.S. officials that 'we have not taken sides with either candidate. And I ask you to accept that in return.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
