Another Trump judicial nominee lacks the legal experience to be a federal judge
Katie Lane’s inexperience — and her extremism — should disqualify her from judicial service.
Last week, Trump announced three more lifetime judicial nominees, in addition to one nominee for an Article IV territorial court.
Katie Lane, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, received immediate praise from the state’s Republican senators. “We congratulate Katie Lane on her nomination to serve as the next District Judge for Montana. Katie’s experience as Deputy Solicitor General for the State of Montana and in various courts across America gives her the skills and perspectives to serve Montana as District Judge,” said Senators Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy. “We will work diligently with Senate leadership and our colleagues to confirm her nomination.”
But her experience, skills, and perspectives — hyped up by Senators Daines and Sheehy in their statement — are fairly limited.
Lane, who appears to be 34 years old, began law school in 2014 and immediately joined the Federalist Society that August. After graduating from law school just nine years ago in 2017 and completing legal internships along the way, Lane clerked for Judge Timothy Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit and Judge Thomas Varlan of the Eastern District of Tennessee — both appointed by President George W. Bush. She then spent just over a year as an associate at Jones Day before working for nearly two years in the Montana office of the attorney general, first as assistant solicitor general and then as deputy solicitor general. After a two-year stint as an associate at Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, she started in April 2025 as senior legal counsel for the Republican National Committee. There, in less than a year, she has “played a critical role in stopping Voter Fraud,” according to Trump’s Truth Social post announcing her nomination.
For someone nominated to serve as a lifetime federal judge, this is a very short legal career — and it is well below what has historically been considered requisite legal experience for service on the federal bench.
What the ABA looks for
Historically, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has believed that “a nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least 12 years’ experience in the practice of law” and that “in evaluating the professional qualifications of a nominee, the Standing Committee recognizes that substantial courtroom and trial experience as a lawyer or trial judge is important.”
Whether or not you value the ABA’s peer evaluations and judicial ratings, this 12-year minimum has been the standard. And it makes sense: These are lifetime positions that come with the ability to impact civil and human rights for millions of people in America.
The ABA’s Standing Committee honored this during Trump’s first term when they handed a Not Qualified rating to five nominees — Holly Teeter, Sarah Pitlyk, Kathryn Mizelle, Brett Talley, and Justin Walker (when he was nominated to the district court) — for their lack of experience. Talley was never confirmed.
So far during Trump’s second term, several nominees have lacked the requisite experience to serve as a federal judge. Whitney Hermandorfer and Josh Divine, for example, graduated from law school in 2015 and 2016, respectively, but they were both rated Well Qualified by a substantial majority of the committee and were confirmed in 2025. Zachary Bluestone graduated in 2016, and he did not receive a rating at all due to “insufficient information.” He was confirmed last year as well.
These ratings may be due to the ABA’s more limited access to judicial nominees after Attorney General Pam Bondi cut off cooperation with the ABA last May. When I asked the ABA about this last year, they were unable to comment on what it would take, this time around, for a nominee to be rated Not Qualified.
It will likely be several weeks — or longer — until Lane receives an ABA rating. But as a 2017 law school graduate, she is the latest Trump judicial nominee who lacks the necessary legal experience to be a federal judge.
In a statement immediately following Lane’s nomination, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said that “President Trump could not have made a better pick as I am confident she will bring valuable experience and integrity to the bench and look forward to welcoming her back to the state.”
Lane’s “valuable experience” is incredibly limited, but it does appear to include work to undermine civil rights, including voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and reproductive rights. That extreme record is very similar to other Trump judicial nominees, and it will be the subject of future reporting here. Stay tuned.