The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines Thursday to advance Kathleen Lane’s nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, sending the first Trump second-term judicial nominee rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.
Lane, a Bozeman attorney and current senior counsel for the Republican National Committee, graduated from law school in 2017 and has fewer than nine years of legal experience — three years short of the 12-year minimum the ABA recommends for federal trial court nominees. The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which surveyed roughly 200 members of the bench and bar in its assessment, found Lane had never tried a case as lead counsel in either a civil or criminal matter. Her trial experience consists of serving as fourth-chair counsel in a single bench trial in 2025, where she briefly cross-examined one witness, and first-chairing one deposition. A minority of the ABA committee considered her qualified.
Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) argued in his opening remarks that the ABA is biased against conservative nominees and praised Lane’s work defending Montana’s coal industry, grazing rights, and Second Amendment cases during her time as a deputy solicitor general under Attorney General Austin Knudsen. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the ranking member, said the ABA’s negative rating was based squarely on Lane’s documented lack of courtroom experience.
Lane, who interned for Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) as a college student and later worked on his 2012 and 2014 campaigns, was introduced at her March 26 hearing by Daines. If confirmed by the full Senate, she would replace Judge Susan Watters, who is retiring to senior status. A Senate floor vote is scheduled for early May.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 