Evaluation Process and Ratings of Supreme Court Nominees by the American Bar Association

Evaluation Process and Ratings of Supreme Court Nominees by the American Bar Association

INSIGHTi

Evaluation Process and Ratings of Supreme
Court Nominees by the American Bar
Association
March 22, 2022
This Insight provides information related to the evaluation and rating of a Supreme Court nominee by the
American Bar Association (ABA). Once a President nominates, or announces an intention to nominate, an
individual to a vacancy on the Court, the nominee is evaluated by the American Bar Association’s
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.
The committee states that each evaluation “focuses solely on a nominee’s professional qualifications” and
“does not take into consideration a nominee’s philosophy, political affiliation or ideology.” A nominee’s
professional qualifications include his or her integrity, professional competence, and judicial
temperament. According to the committee, it “conducts the most extensive nationwide peer review
possible [of the nominee] on the premise that the highest court in the land requires a lawyer or judge with
exceptional professional qualifications.” Consequently, the evaluation process typically involves
conducting hundreds of interviews with those “persons most likely to have information regarding the
professional qualifications of the nominee.” It also involves an examination of the nominee’s legal
writings by law school professors (often recognized experts in areas of law related to the nominee’s
writings) and practicing lawyers with experience arguing before the Court.
In reporting the result of its evaluation, the ABA committee rates a nominee as “Well Qualified,”
“Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.” The committee’s rating can be unanimous (appearing as a single rating)
or, if not unanimous, the rating by the majority or substantial majority of the committee is listed first,
followed by the rating or ratings given by a minority of the committee. Occasionally, under certain
circumstances, a committee member is recused or otherwise abstains from participating in a vote on the
rating for a nominee.
A nominee’s rating is submitted in writing to the Senate Judiciary Committee, White House, and U.S.
Department of Justice. Typically, the Senate Judiciary Committee has also invited the ABA committee to
testify, as the first public witness, about its evaluation and rating of the nominee at his or her confirmation
hearing.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11896
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 Congressional Research Service
2
Ratings of Nominees from 1990 to 2022
Table 1 provides ABA ratings information for Supreme Court nominees from 1990 to 2022. As shown by
the table, of the 12 nominees rated by the committee, 11 received a rating of “Well Qualified” (and the
rating was unanimous for 10 of the 11 nominees).
According to the committee, to receive a rating of “Well Qualified,” a nominee “must be a preeminent
member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and
meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The
rating ... is reserved for those found to merit the Standing Committee’s strongest affirmative
endorsement.”
A rating of “Qualified” means that the nominee satisfies the committee’s “high standards with respect to
integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament” and the committee considers “the nominee
is fully qualified to perform all of the duties and responsibilities” associated with serving on the Court.
Table 1. ABA Ratings of Supreme Court Nominees, 1990-2022
Nominee
Year
Rating / Unanimous?
Recusals or Abstentions
Jackson
2022
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Barrett
2020
Well Qualified / Noa
n/a
Kavanaugh
2018
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Gorsuch
2017
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Garland
2016
Well Qualified / Yes
1 recusal
Kagan
2010
Well Qualified / Yes
1 abstention
Sotomayor
2009
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Alito
2005
Well Qualified / Yes
1 recusal
Miers
2005
No Ratingb
n/a
Robertsc
2005
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Breyer
1994
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Ginsburg
1993
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Thomas
1991
Qualified / Nod
1 recusal
Souter
1990
Well Qualified / Yes
n/a
Source: American Bar Association at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/ratings.
Notes:
a. A substantial majority of the committee rated Amy Coney Barrett as “Well Qualified,” while a minority rated her as
“Qualified.”
b. The Miers nomination was withdrawn prior to being rated by the ABA.
c. For the position of Chief Justice. John G. Roberts, Jr., was similarly rated as “Well Qualified” when initially nominated
to be an Associate Justice.
d. A substantial majority of the committee rated Clarence Thomas as “Qualified,” while a minority rated him as “Not
Qualified.”
Evaluation of Nominees Prior to 1990
Although the ABA has evaluated nominees to the Supreme Court since 1955, it has not used the same
terminology or ratings system in its evaluation of nominees for the past 67 years. For example, during the

Congressional Research Service
3
Eisenhower presidency, several Supreme Court nominees were characterized as “eminently qualified.”
This term was used to describe John Harlan, William Brennan, Jr., and Charles Whittaker. Another
Eisenhower nominee, Potter Stewart, was described by the ABA as being “exceptionally well qualified.”
This term was also used to describe Byron White (nominated by President Kennedy).
Later during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon presidencies, the ABA characterized a number of
nominees as “highly acceptable from the viewpoint of professional qualifications.” The ABA used this
language to describe Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas (for both his Associate Justice and Chief Justice
nominations), Thurgood Marshall, Homer Thornberry, Warren Burger, and Clement Haynsworth, Jr. The
ABA used similar language for Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and John Paul Stevens (“meets
high standards of professional competence, judicial temperament and integrity”). In 1981, the ABA
characterized Sandra Day O’Connor as meeting “the highest standards of judicial temperament and
integrity” while being “qualified from the standpoint of professional competence.”
Since the mid-1980s, the ABA has used the term “Well Qualified” as its highest rating—with William H.
Rehnquist being the first nominee to receive this rating when he was nominated to be Chief Justice in
1986. CRS compiled information about the evaluation of nominees prior to 1990 by examining news
articles and information provided by the ABA.

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion
Jennifer Teefy
Analyst in American National Government
Senior Research Librarian

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11896 · VERSION 1 · NEW