ABA Finds First ‘Unqualified’ Judge Pick of Trump’s Second Term

A Republican National Committee lawyer is the first judicial nominee of President Donald Trump’s second term to be given a “not qualified” rating by the American Bar Association.

A majority of the ABA’s standing committee on the federal judiciary, which vets judicial nominees, gave the rating to RNC senior counsel Kathleen “Katie” Lane, who’s nominated for a seat on the US District Court for the District of Montana.

Lane’s rating was due solely to her lack of experience, and not other factors including temperament or integrity, according to an April 7 letter from the standing committee. Bloomberg Law obtained a copy of the letter. The substack “Nomination Notes” first reported on Lane’s rating.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson swiped at the American Bar Association, calling it “useless and partisan” and accusing the group of targeting Trump’s nominees. She said the judge picks go through a “rigorous vetting process.”

“Wherever there are judicial vacancies, President Trump will select highly qualified nominees with great respect for our Constitution and rule of law to be confirmed expeditiously,” Jackson said in a statement.

The standard for a federal trial court judgeship is typically 12 years of experience as an attorney, said Pamela J. Roberts, the chair of the committee . She said that can be overcome by “substantial trial or courtroom experience and/or compensating accomplishments in the field of law,” but that Lane hadn’t met that bar.

Lane never tried a case as lead counsel, and has only briefly cross-examined a witness as a fourth-chair lawyer in a bench trial, and led one deposition, Roberts wrote. The letter said that while Lane argued two cases at courts of appeal, she hadn’t done other key parts of trial practice like delivering an opening statement or selecting a jury.

Roberts said Lane has an impressive resume and had two federal clerkships, and is “held in high regard” by those who have known her while she’s been practicing law.

“She is viewed as a talented lawyer, indeed at the top of her peer group throughout her career,” Roberts wrote. “Under the Committee’s standards, however, these positive attributes do not compensate for the short time Ms. Lane has practiced law—less than nine years, including her clerkships—and her lack of substantial courtroom and trial experience.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the letter “confirms what we already knew: Katie Lane is clearly untested and unqualified to serve as a lifetime judge. The White House should go back to the drawing board and put forward a nominee who is qualified and prepared to uphold the rule of law.”

Lane was questioned about her lack of trial experience during her March 25 Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Montana’s Republican Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy, who backed Lane’s nomination, didn’t immediately return requests for comment.

Daines spoke in support of Lane at her confirmation hearing. “Katie’s distinguished record of public service and experience in the federal and state judiciary makes her well-qualified to serve on the federal bench.”

Several letters of support were also submitted on Lane’s nomination. “Her experience, judgment, and temperament make her superbly well-suited to serve as a federal district judge,” 24 Republican attorneys general wrote of Lane.

Five of Trump’s second term nominees haven’t received ratings due to “insufficient information.” But others who have been vetted by the ABA so far have all been rated “qualified” or “well qualified.”

A minority of the ABA committee rated Lane as qualified for the judgeship. During her confirmation hearing, Lane pointed at her clerkships and her current role at the RNC in defending herself from Democratic questions about a lack of experience.

ABA ratings for Trump judicial nominees were a point of contention during the president’s first term, with Republican senators attacking the findings and accusing the group of bias. But some of Trump’s initial nominees were withdrawn after facing criticism for a lack of experience and failing to answer basic legal questions during confirmation hearings.

The ABA no longer has special access to nominees, instead vetting potential judges after they’re announced as picks.

The group has repeatedly found itself at odds with the Trump administration and the conservative legal movement, facing criticism for diversity programs and going to court over actions like the executive orders targeting certain law firms.