Are sitting federal judges rated?

Not through a public performance-evaluation program like the ones some states run. The federal courts do publish workload reports by judge, including motions pending more than six months. Those measure delay, not quality.

What do the ABA ratings mean?

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rates nominees as Well Qualified, Qualified or Not Qualified. The ratings address integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and they come before confirmation.

Do ratings predict how a judge will rule?

No. Evaluation programs aim to measure qualities such as impartiality, case management and clear communication, not outcomes. A rating tells you how a group of people assessed those qualities, not how your motion will be decided.

Does JudgeFinder rate judges?

No. JudgeFinder shows court assignments and docket counts from CourtListener. It publishes no ratings, bias scores or outcome predictions.

JudgeFinder / guidesExplainer

What judicial ratings mean, and which ones exist

By JudgeFinder Editors · Published October 7, 2026 · 4 min read

There is no single judicial rating. The American Bar Association rates federal nominees before confirmation as Well Qualified, Qualified or Not Qualified. Some states run official evaluations of sitting judges and publish the results. Everything else, from lawyer polls to review sites, uses its own method. Before you rely on a number, find out who produced it, whom they asked and what they measured.

ABA ratings: federal nominees only

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluates people nominated to federal judgeships. The Congressional Research Service describes the process this way: the committee says it looks only at professional qualifications, which it defines as integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and it does not consider a nominee's philosophy, political affiliation or ideology.

The committee uses three ratings:

Well Qualified. The committee reserves its strongest endorsement for a nominee it finds preeminent in the profession, with outstanding legal ability and the highest standards of integrity, competence and temperament.
Qualified. The nominee meets the committee's high standards and is fully qualified to perform the job.
Not Qualified. The nominee does not meet them.

The vote can be unanimous or split. When it is split, the majority rating is listed first, followed by the minority rating. The rating goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the White House and the Department of Justice, and it describes a person who has not yet taken the bench. It is not a review of a judge's years on the job. CourtListener's judge database stores ABA ratings alongside appointments and education, so you can see them on a judge's record.

State evaluation programs: sitting judges

Many states evaluate judges who are already serving. The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver, which studies these programs, says judicial performance evaluation first developed in the 1980s. Its stated aim is to hold judges accountable for job performance while protecting judicial independence, by focusing on neutral qualities such as impartiality, case administration and clarity of communication rather than specific case outcomes.

IAALS reports that by 2006, when it began tracking, nineteen states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia had set up state-sanctioned programs, alongside private programs usually run by bar associations. Programs exist in states such as Alaska, Colorado, Missouri and New Mexico. Programs commonly draw on surveys of lawyers, jurors and court staff, plus case-management data, and the mix varies by state. Some states publish results before retention elections, so voters can use them.

Your state's judicial council, evaluation commission or court system site is the place to look. If your state has no program, there is nothing official to find, and a private poll is a different kind of evidence.

What the federal courts publish instead

Sitting federal judges are not part of a public evaluation program. The federal courts do publish workload data by judge. Under the Civil Justice Reform Act, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts prepares a semiannual report showing, for each district judge and magistrate judge, motions pending more than six months, bench trials submitted more than six months, and civil cases pending more than three years. The reports cover data as of March 31 and September 30.

That report measures delay. A motion pending for six months can reflect a heavy docket, a hard legal question or a vacancy in the district. It does not measure whether a judge decides cases well.

How to read any rating

Ask five questions before you trust a score:

Who rated? Lawyers, jurors, court staff, journalists or an anonymous crowd each see different things.
How many responded? A rating built on a handful of answers can swing on one bad day in court.
What was measured? Temperament, speed and knowledge are separate. A single number can hide a split.
When? A judge's docket, courtroom and habits change.
What is the comparison? A score means little without the scores of other judges on the same court.

Lawyer surveys carry one more risk. People who lost a motion may rate the judge lower, which is one reason well-run programs stress qualities other than outcomes. Treat any rating as one input next to the judge's rules, orders and docket.

Why JudgeFinder does not rate judges

JudgeFinder's records come from CourtListener docket metadata. That data can show which court a judge sits on, how many dockets are linked to the judge by filing year, and recent docket numbers. It cannot show whether a judge decided a case correctly. Counting filings and calling the result a score would imply something the data does not contain, so JudgeFinder publishes no ratings, bias scores or predictions. The data sources page explains what each field means.

For a step-by-step approach to researching a judge with sources that do exist, read how to research a federal judge.

Frequently asked questions

Are sitting federal judges rated?: Not through a public performance-evaluation program like the ones some states run. The federal courts do publish workload reports by judge, including motions pending more than six months. Those measure delay, not quality.
What do the ABA ratings mean?: The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rates nominees as Well Qualified, Qualified or Not Qualified. The ratings address integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, and they come before confirmation.
Do ratings predict how a judge will rule?: No. Evaluation programs aim to measure qualities such as impartiality, case management and clear communication, not outcomes. A rating tells you how a group of people assessed those qualities, not how your motion will be decided.
Does JudgeFinder rate judges?: No. JudgeFinder shows court assignments and docket counts from CourtListener. It publishes no ratings, bias scores or outcome predictions.

Sources

General information from public sources, not legal advice. Rules differ by court and change. Check the court's current rules or ask a lawyer. See federal judge records and the data notes.