Trump administration may strip ABA of law school gatekeeper power

Clear Facts

• The Trump administration will decide by late December whether to end the American Bar Association’s federal recognition as a law school accreditor.
• Education Department staff have recommended denying renewal after finding the ABA out of compliance with more than 26 federal criteria.
• Texas and Florida have already ended exclusive reliance on ABA accreditation, with Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, and Washington considering similar changes.

The Trump administration is expected to decide by late December whether to strip the American Bar Association’s law school accrediting arm of federal recognition. The move would not automatically end the ABA’s accreditation of law schools or change state bar-admission rules.

However, the decision could accelerate states’ efforts to approve alternative paths to becoming a lawyer.

“I think the biggest thing is, everyone should know that the federal recognition of the ABA is just the first step,” Adam Biggs, general counsel of the University of Austin, told Fox News Digital. “If they get knocked off their perch, that’s going to supercharge the conversations of these state supreme courts to create alternative pathways that are not just the ABA.”

The looming decision follows a September vote by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. The federal panel remained deadlocked over whether to recommend renewing the ABA’s federal accreditation recognition.

Education Department staff have already recommended denying renewal. The decision now rests with Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent to rule on whether the ABA’s accrediting arm can retain its federally recognized status, which it has held since 1952.

The ABA has long served as the primary gatekeeper for legal education in the United States. Most states require graduates to have attended an ABA-accredited law school to qualify for the bar exam.

Critics argue that losing federal recognition could accelerate efforts already underway in some states to recognize alternative law school approval systems. This could potentially allow institutions to experiment with cheaper, shorter programs outside the ABA’s traditional accreditation model.

One such alternative is taking shape in Texas, where Biggs is helping develop a new law school at the University of Austin that would operate without ABA accreditation. The university is considering a two-year law program or a model that combines undergraduate and legal studies.

It plans to make tuition free and avoid federal funding altogether. The proposed school could also depart from traditional law school staffing models by relying more heavily on practicing attorneys and federal judges as adjunct instructors.

Biggs argued that the ABA’s longstanding influence over legal education has discouraged such experimentation by imposing what he described as a “one size fits all elitist model of education,” which he said drives up costs and limits schools’ ability to offer alternative approaches to training future lawyers.

“Right now, the model they force makes it impossible to cut overhead, and it’s going to be an expensive product,” Biggs said, criticizing the ABA’s accreditation requirements. “That makes the decision for you. Because you need to live in a big city to go work at a firm to pay off your massive amount of debt.”

Biggs added that reducing the cost of legal education could help address attorney shortages in rural and underserved communities. Graduates carrying substantial student debt may struggle to pursue lower-paying legal work.

The ABA faculty requirements criticized by Biggs are also facing scrutiny from the Justice Department. The department has threatened an antitrust investigation over restrictions on adjunct professors teaching core law school courses.

In an Oct. 7 letter, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward gave the ABA 15 days to revise or justify its rules. The letter argues that the requirements restrict competition and contribute to higher tuition costs, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The emergence of alternative accreditation pathways could offer aspiring lawyers new opportunities. It could also introduce complications for graduates hoping to practice in states other than where they attended law school.

While the federal government determines which accrediting agencies it recognizes for federal purposes, state supreme courts generally set their own bar-admission requirements. Many states currently require graduation from an ABA-accredited law school.

That requirement would not automatically disappear if the ABA loses its federal recognition. Graduates of schools approved through alternative state-level processes could qualify for the bar in their home state but face additional hurdles elsewhere.

Biggs predicted that as more states adopt alternative pathways, others could face pressure to reconsider their requirements.

“Eventually there’s gonna be a very large group of states that are not ABA or nothing,” Biggs said, predicting that states such as New York and Illinois would eventually have to confront the issue. “They’re gonna have to come to the table and try to figure out how portability is gonna work.”

Several states have already begun loosening the ABA’s longstanding hold over legal education. In January, Texas became the first state to end its exclusive reliance on ABA accreditation for bar eligibility. The state Supreme Court assumed authority to approve qualifying law schools.

Florida followed nine days later, adopting its own approach to recognizing law schools outside the traditional ABA system. The movement has since extended to other states.

Ohio’s Supreme Court proposed changes in May to establish a state-run law school approval process. Courts in Tennessee, Alabama and Washington have also taken steps toward reducing their reliance on the ABA.

The potential consequences for federal student loans may be far more limited. Biggs explained that most law schools are affiliated with larger universities that maintain their own institutional accreditation.

This allows students to access federal aid without relying exclusively on the ABA’s recognition.

“So unless you are a freestanding law school that only relies on the ABA, your students are gonna be fine,” Biggs said.

Sarah Parshall Perry, attorney and vice president of nonprofit Defending Education, similarly told Fox News Digital that the more immediate federal-aid concerns would fall on standalone law schools that rely on the ABA’s federal recognition rather than a parent university’s institutional accreditation.

Perry estimated that roughly 15 standalone law schools could potentially face federal funding complications if the ABA loses its recognition.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, Perry argued that loosening the ABA’s grip on legal education could bring more fundamental changes to what law schools teach and how they prepare students for the profession.

“These law students are actually going to get a better education,” Perry argued. “Because we get the ABA meddling away from curricular inclusions, and we get them away from race mandates in admissions and in hiring and promotions, we get back to ground zero on making excellent lawyers.”

“I don’t care what color my attorney is if I get in a car crash. I am very concerned that he recognizes principles of contract law and insurance liability. That’s what matters most,” she added.

The ABA’s accrediting council has already moved to roll back some of its DEI requirements amid concern the federal government could strip its accrediting status. In September, the council voted 10-6 to repeal Standard 206, which had required law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion among students, faculty and staff.

Education Department officials previously told Fox News Digital that staff had recommended denying the organization’s renewed recognition after finding it out of compliance with more than 26 federal recognition criteria. These included concerns about the accrediting council’s independence from the broader ABA membership and advocacy activities.

The ABA has disputed the Department’s findings and defended the independence of its accrediting council. Even if the administration ultimately revokes federal recognition, the organization could continue accrediting law schools, leaving states to decide whether to maintain their longstanding reliance on ABA approval or embrace alternative pathways as some have already started doing.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.