Education Department Moves to Strip American Bar Association's Law School Accreditation Power

The Department of Education moved Friday to strip the American Bar Association of its 74-year-old authority to accredit U.S. law schools. A department spokesperson told the Daily Signal and Fox Business that a review of the ABA's standards found it "out of compliance with the agency's accreditation regulations and recognition standards." The finding was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. This is a recommendation, not a final decision. Melissa Hart, the former Colorado Supreme Court justice who chairs the ABA's Accreditation Council, called it "one step in the regular recognition process" and said the council is "confident it complies with the Higher Education Act and with the department's requirements for accreditors." She said the council will get a chance to "address any misconceptions" at a hearing next month before the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, known as NACIQI. That hearing, scheduled for September, is the next real checkpoint. NACIQI will make its own recommendation to Undersecretary of Education Nicholas Kent, according to Fox Business. A final call is still several months away, according to Reuters.

Why this is happening now

President Trump signed an executive order in April 2025 directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to evaluate suspending or terminating the ABA's accreditor status, citing what he called the group's "unlawful 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' requirements," according to Reuters. Assistant Secretary of Education David Barker told the Wall Street Journal that accreditation "operates like a cartel" and that without competition, accreditors "feel free to inject their own political preferences, their own ideologies into the work that they do," a quote reported by The Federalist. Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said on social media that the ABA "has abused its role as the nation's main law school accreditor to push leftist ideology in the legal profession" and that it will "finally face the repercussions of prioritizing political agendas over the law," according to The Federalist. A White House spokesperson last year described the ABA as a "snooty" organization of "leftist lawyers," Reuters reported. The fight over DEI standards is central to the dispute. The ABA suspended one diversity accreditation rule, Standard 206, last year in response to Trump's executive order, according to The College Fix. A second rule, Standard 303(c), which requires law schools to teach students about "bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism," remains in place. Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor who has urged the ABA to repeal it, told The College Fix the standard originated with law school deans after the 2020 George Floyd protests and that "concerns arose that it would be implemented through a particular ideological valence." He also said there was never clarity on "how the standard was supposed to be measured in terms of improvement or effectiveness for student outcomes." The ABA's own regulatory council has been moving, on its own timeline, toward walking the DEI standard back. The ABA Journal reported that the council will vote on repealing Standard 206 at a special virtual session on September 8, the same month it faces its five-year accreditation review before NACIQI. A memo from the council in May said the standard "has not effectively achieved its purpose." One of the ABA's own regulatory committees rejected a repeal recommendation last week, delaying but not killing the measure, according to Reuters.

What's actually at stake

Losing accreditor status would not shut down law schools overnight, but it would create real disruption. ABA accreditation is the standard path to bar admission in most states, and under the Higher Education Act of 1965, only students at accredited schools can access federal loans and grants, according to Fox Business. Reuters reported the change "could make it harder for law students to take the bar exam and become licensed attorneys in different states." An official familiar with the matter told The Federalist that university-affiliated law schools would likely still qualify for federal aid under their parent institution's broader accreditation, softening the blow for most students, though standalone law schools would be more exposed. The ABA has been an active combatant in this fight, not a passive target. It has sued the administration over canceled domestic violence grant funding and challenged Trump's executive orders targeting individual law firms, according to Reuters. The Justice Department has separately barred its attorneys from ABA events and cut the group's longtime role vetting judicial nominees. The strongest case against the administration's move is that it targets an organization mid-reform. The ABA's law school council already suspended Standard 206 last year and appears headed toward repealing 303(c) on September 8, on a timeline that predates Friday's report. Critics of the department's action could argue that punishing the ABA now, right as its own process is producing the outcome the administration wants, undercuts the claim that the accreditor is unresponsive. The counterargument, made by Assistant Secretary Barker and amplified by Severino, is that the ABA only moved after years of external pressure and lawsuit threats, and that a monopoly accreditor with an ideological track record shouldn't get credit for reforming under duress. Nothing is decided. NACIQI's September hearing and the council's own September 8 vote on Standard 206 will all happen before Undersecretary Kent makes any final recommendation. Whether the ABA keeps its 74-year grip on law school accreditation now depends on decisions still weeks and months away.