The American Bar Association’s declaration that Attorney General Bondi’s abrogation of its privileges is “disturbing” could herald a further escalation of conflict between the Trump administration and the legal profession. 

The ABA made that characterization in a letter to the attorney general informing her that it is “both surprised and disappointed that the Justice Department has decided for the first time in 72 years” to block its access to judicial nominees with respect to both interviews and records. The ABA contends that the change “will likely result in less transparency in the process of confirming nominees to lifetime appointments.”

The response comes after Ms. Bondi pointed to “bias” in the ABA’s evaluation of judges and reckoned that 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.” She adds on X: “The American Bar Association has lost its way.”

The ABA, though, maintains that it “does not evaluate a nominee’s ideology or judicial philosophy.” In any event, it has rated 10 of President Trump’s nominees in his second term as “unqualified,” its lowest evaluation. Eight of those have been confirmed by the Senate.

The association writes to Ms. Bondi that it “has issued Well Qualified or Qualified ratings to no less than 96.9 percent of the rated nominees in each administration during the last two decades. This includes the first Trump administration.” The ABA awarded a “Well Qualified” rating to all three of Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominees.

The ABA, though, rated the high court’s senior justice, Clarence Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, as merely “qualified.” The ABA has also sued the Trump administration over cuts to USAID, which provided millions of dollars in grants to the organization. Ms. Bondi has also quarreled with the ABA, which now numbers some 400,000 members, over its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

The ABA acknowledges that it “has received special treatment and access to judicial nominees for decades,” but contends that the “access has been and remains warranted.” It insists: “The ABA has been treated differently … because we are different.” The association argues that the group involved in vetting nominees, the “Standing Committee,” does not “consider a nominee’s philosophy, political affiliation or ideology.”

The Standing Committee reports that its ratings of “Not Qualified” stem largely from an assessment that some nominees lacked “professional competence,” meaning that they “lacked trial or litigation experience.” At least one Republican lawmaker, Senator Lee, disagrees. He calls the ABA a “radical left-wing advocacy group” committed to “woke initiatives.”

Democrats have largely rallied to the ABA’s standard. Senator Durbin calls the downgrading of the ABA a “seismic change in the judicial nominations process — an unjustified and blatantly political move by the Trump Administration.” In 2018 a Republican, Senator Graham, called the ABA the “gold standard” in the context of Justice Kavanaugh’s contentious confirmation.

Ms. Bondi’s battle with the ABA is just one front in the administration’s sprawling conflict with the legal profession, which at its upper echelons largely leans left. Her own Florida Bar Association has three times fielded complaints to investigate her for “unethical” behavior, though each time it has been determined that her federal office protects her from state censure. Her brother, Bradley, this week lost a bid for the presidency of the D.C. Bar by some 80 points.

In March the ABA issued a statement condemning Mr. Trump’s criticism of the judiciary — he called one jurist, Judge James Boasberg, a “radical left lunatic” — and executive orders penalizing law firms for “lawfare.” Three of those orders have been found unconstitutional by federal judges. Some firms have elected to reach accords with the White House rather than contest those punitive measures in court.  

The ABA reckons that these actions demonstrate a “clear and disconcerting pattern. If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted. If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted.”     

Ms. Bondi explains that the ABA is free to opine on judicial nominees, even as it will no longer have a privileged role in vetting them. The ABA, though, insists that it is irreplaceable, as: “There is no one else doing the type of in-depth, independent evaluation that the Standing Committee does.”