The Senate confirmed Katie Lane to a lifetime judgeship in Montana Tuesday, voting 52 to 46 along party lines—even after the American Bar Association delivered a rare “not qualified” rating for her professional experience. Democrats argued she is the “least qu
When the Senate called Katie Lane’s name on Tuesday, the vote made the controversy immediate: 52 to 46, along party lines, for a lifetime federal judgeship in Montana.
The decision came even as Lane carried what the American Bar Association described as an “not qualified” rating—an assessment that is unusually stark for a Trump court pick and, in this second term, the first time a nominee has been confirmed despite that particular evaluation.
Lane, 34, will now sit on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. She most recently served as senior legal counsel at the Republican National Committee. Her confirmation lands her in a role that the ABA says requires more courtroom and trial experience than she has accumulated—at least based on the ABA’s review.
The ABA has for decades rated the professional qualifications of federal judicial nominees from both major parties. Before Trump’s presidency. it was very unusual for the organization to evaluate someone as “not qualified.” The record cited in the dispute is stark: none of President Barack Obama’s or Joe Biden’s judicial nominees received that rating. and neither did President George H.W. Bush’s or Ronald Reagan’s picks.
During Trump’s first term. ten of his 234 judicial nominees were rated “not qualified. ” and Republicans confirmed eight of them anyway. The contrast—between the ABA’s negative assessment and the eventual confirmations—has become part of the broader fight over how much weight senators should give the nonpartisan bar group.
In Lane’s case, the ABA’s “not qualified” conclusion was driven entirely by experience. The ABA said she has practiced law for about nine years, which falls below the ABA’s 12-year minimum standard. The evaluation also pointed to a shorter runway in trial settings: she has less than eight years of experience in trial courts and less than seven years as a litigator. She has never tried a case as lead counsel, whether civil or criminal.
In an April letter to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders. Pamela Roberts. who chairs the ABA panel reviewing judicial nominees. laid out the ABA’s reasoning. Roberts wrote that practicing law over time—especially “years and courtroom and trial experience”—prepares a lawyer for the responsibility of presiding over a courtroom and for earning public confidence and respect in the legal community where they serve. She also said the majority of the Standing Committee concluded that Lane “presently does not meet the requisite minimum standard of experience necessary to be Qualified for the high office of a federal trial judge.”.
Roberts also described an exhaustive process: the ABA routinely interviews dozens of people professionally familiar with a nominee and seeks feedback from dozens more with judicial and legal expertise. In Lane’s case, it received feedback from nearly 200 people who are sitting judges or have relevant legal backgrounds.
Senate Democrats seized on the rating as evidence of what they see as a pattern—particularly after Democrats pressed Trump’s court picks with questions about constitutional loyalty rather than personal alignment. During Lane’s March hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked Lane. “Who won the 2020 election?” Lane replied that the Constitution outlines the process. and as a judicial nominee she would focus on what the Constitution requires: an electoral vote and certification by Congress.
When pressed on Jan. 6, 2021, Lane declined to describe the events. The record in the controversy is unambiguous: the day after Trump incited a mob of supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol with plans to hurt or even kill members of Congress to stop them from certifying Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. and as the dispute centered on Trump’s baseless claim that the election was stolen.
Afterward. Lane condemned violence in written responses to Durbin’s follow-up questions following her hearing. saying. “I condemn all violence. including on January 6.” But she also said that to the extent Durbin’s questions asked her to characterize the events. it was an issue of ongoing political debate and litigation. She added that as a judicial nominee. it would be inappropriate to provide comments that could implicate issues or parties that may come before her.
Democrats argued the ABA rating and Lane’s experience shortfall fit together. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Lane the “least qualified judicial nominee” of Trump’s second term.
Durbin pointed to the pool of lawyers available in Montana, saying there are more than 3,000 licensed attorneys in the state. He argued that the White House should have found one among them with experience for a lifetime appointment to the federal trial bench.
On the Senate floor Monday night, Durbin said, “Instead, President Trump has selected Ms. Lane.” He then said Lane “is not remotely qualified to serve as a district court judge in the federal system.”
Republicans, by contrast, made the confirmation about Lane’s values and career trajectory rather than the ABA’s experience findings. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who recommended Lane to the White House for the seat, did not mention the “not qualified” rating in remarks ahead of Tuesday’s vote.
Daines praised Lane’s record and work. telling the Senate floor that her “values are rooted in Montana and grounded in the Constitution.” He also said Lane’s public service and experience in both the federal and state judiciary make her “well-qualified to serve on the federal bench. ” adding emphasis on her defenses tied to gun rights and the coal industry.
A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
The vote leaves Lane on a path toward a lifetime judgeship. despite the ABA’s unusually blunt assessment of her qualifications and her limited trial experience—an outcome that senators on both sides have increasingly framed as a test of what counts most in judicial selection: bar-association vetting. courtroom experience. or the political and constitutional commitments senators say they’re trying to reflect.
For Montana, the immediate consequence is clear: Katie Lane will take her place on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. For the Senate. the conflict is also unmistakable—how to reconcile a rare “not qualified” rating with the decision to confirm anyway. and what that choice signals about the direction of the federal judiciary in Trump’s second term.
Katie Lane Senate confirmation American Bar Association not qualified U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Dick Durbin Steve Daines Trump court pick judicial nominees