Well, here we go again, because apparently the lessons of Trump’s first judicial rodeo were filed somewhere between “ignore” and “double down.”
Donald Trump’s nominee for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Kathleen “Katie” Lane, has earned herself an “unqualified” rating from the American Bar Association, and while this is the first such rating of Trump’s second term, it is very much in keeping with the franchise.
A quick trip down memory lane reminds us that the ABA handed out plenty of “not qualified” stickers during Trump 1.0. They scraped the bottom of the barrel and found ghost hunters, anti-gay bloggers, straight-up associates, and one candidate (ultimately confirmed because we live in the dumbest timeline) that is an “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules” (an assessment Judge VanDyke’s time on the Ninth Circuit has proven the ABA prescient).
Lane’s problem isn’t ideological — the ABA goes out of its way to say she’s smart, well-regarded, and, in fact, “at the top of her peer group.” The problem is that being a promising lawyer is not the same thing as being ready to run a federal trial courtroom. And according to Pamela J. Roberts, who chairs the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the baseline expectation for that job is about 12 years of legal experience, a benchmark Lane doesn’t hit even with generous counting.
Now, that experience gap could theoretically be offset by substantial courtroom work. But according to the ABA’s evaluation, Lane has never tried a case as lead counsel, has only briefly cross-examined a witness while serving as fourth chair in a bench trial, and has taken exactly one deposition. She’s argued two appellate cases, but has never handled core trial functions like jury selection or opening statements. Which is… not ideal when you are being nominated to be, checks notes, a trial judge.
Roberts’s assessment manages to be both polite and devastating, noting that while Lane is talented and well-liked, “these positive attributes do not compensate” for her limited time in practice (less than nine years total, including clerkships) and her lack of meaningful trial experience. That’s the kind of feedback you give a midlevel associate you’re not quite ready to make partner, not someone you’re about to hand a lifetime appointment with enormous power over people’s rights and livelihoods.
Naturally, the White House response to all this was not “maybe we should nominate someone who has, you know, tried a case,” but rather to attack the messenger. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson dismissed the ABA as “useless and partisan” and insisted that Trump’s nominees undergo a “rigorous vetting process.” Which is a bold claim for an administration currently batting cleanup with candidates who have never picked a jury.
This ongoing war on the ABA isn’t happening in a vacuum. The organization has been evaluating judicial nominees since the 1950s, operating as an independent check on professional qualifications rather than ideology. But in the Trump era, any institution that produces inconvenient conclusions gets rebranded as biased, partisan, or otherwise illegitimate. Which is all part of a broader project that treats the rule of law less as a governing principle and more as an obstacle to be managed.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are, unsurprisingly, not buying what the White House is selling. Sen. Dick Durbin cut to the chase, saying the ABA’s letter “confirms what we already knew: Katie Lane is clearly untested and unqualified to serve as a lifetime judge,” and suggesting the administration might want to try again with someone who actually meets the basic job requirements.
But if history is any guide, “unqualified” is less a red flag than a mild inconvenience to the Trump administration and a Senate unwilling to stand up to the bully in the presidency.
The post ABA Hands Trump Nominee ‘Unqualified’ Reality Check appeared first on Above the Law.