The American Bar Association has called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to rescind a recent Justice Department policy that bars the ABA from evaluating federal judicial nominees—a practice that had remained unbroken for more than 70 years. In a June 10 letter, ABA President William R. Bay described the move as “deeply disturbing” and lacking in justification or factual basis.

“The ABA is both surprised and disappointed,” Bay wrote, noting that the DOJ’s policy represents the first time in seven decades that the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has been denied access to judicial nominees or relevant information needed for its evaluations.

Bay’s response follows a May 29 letter from Bondi, in which she argued the ABA “no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications” and contended its ratings “invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations.”

Rejecting that premise, Bay wrote that Bondi’s assertions “are not supported by the data or facts.” He cited the committee’s “Well Qualified” ratings for all three of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees during his first term as evidence of the ABA’s nonpartisan evaluations.

The DOJ has not publicly responded to Bay’s letter. A department spokesperson declined to comment when contacted.

The policy change comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to limit third-party influence over judicial selection and underscores a growing rift between the legal profession’s largest voluntary association and the executive branch.

Bay, a partner at Thompson Coburn, emphasized that the ABA remains committed to maintaining the objectivity and thoroughness of its evaluations, and urged the DOJ to restore the committee’s role. “We believe that vetting judicial nominees in a transparent, apolitical manner is critical to the public’s trust in the judiciary,” he wrote.