The Department of Education’s accreditation staff has recommended ending the American Bar Association’s (ABA) longstanding exclusive authority to accredit U.S. law schools, citing repeated compliance failures and concerns about the group’s governance and adherence to federal law.
Explainer Education Policy Reform: Accountability, Innovation, and School Choice in America
This recommendation, if adopted, could significantly reshape legal education in the United States. For more than seventy years, the ABA has served as the sole federally recognized accreditor for law schools, acting as the primary gatekeeper for institutions whose graduates seek to sit for state bar exams and enter the legal profession.
The staff’s recommendation follows a detailed report that found the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar out of compliance with several federal standards. The report specifically criticized the ABA for enforcing diversity mandates and other standards that, according to the Department, conflicted with recent Supreme Court rulings and federal regulations.
Federal Review and Compliance Issues
Assistant Secretary David Barker, who oversees accreditation, described the current system as operating “like a cartel.” According to Barker, the lack of competition among accreditors has allowed organizations like the ABA to “inject their own political preferences, their own ideologies into the work that they do.”
A central focus of the staff report was the ABA’s enforcement of Standard 206, which required law schools to demonstrate “concrete efforts” to achieve diversity among students, faculty, and staff. This standard remained in effect even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which barred race-based admissions policies at colleges and universities. The staff report noted that the ABA continued to enforce Standard 206 for nearly 20 months after the Supreme Court’s ruling, only suspending it under federal pressure.
Further, the report found that the ABA failed to revise or repeal Standard 206 to bring it into compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision. The ABA only moved to repeal the standard three years after the ruling, and only after ongoing scrutiny from the Department of Education. During this period, the ABA reportedly instructed staff to redact certain questions from site evaluations and directed that complaints about Standard 206 not be shared with site teams, raising concerns about transparency and responsiveness to federal oversight.
"Accreditation operates like a cartel, and when there’s no competition, accreditors feel free to inject their own political preferences, their own ideologies into the work that they do."
— David Barker, Assistant Secretary, Department of Education
Questions Over Benchmarks and Governance
The Department of Education staff also questioned the ABA’s justification for its core quality metric, known as Standard 316. This standard requires that at least 75 percent of a law school’s graduates pass a bar examination within two years of graduation. The ABA claimed that it had relied on studies to set this benchmark, but when asked by the Department, it did not produce the studies or data supporting the standard.
Additional compliance issues cited in the report include the ABA’s use of federal terms in ways inconsistent with regulation, failure to codify promised rule revisions, and a lack of demonstrated independence between the ABA’s accreditation arm and the broader organization. The report noted that bylaws intended to address these governance concerns were still pending approval at a section business meeting, indicating that reforms had not yet been fully implemented.
Broader Legal and Political Context
The ABA’s role as the exclusive accreditor of law schools has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. This scrutiny intensified after the ABA’s House of Delegates declared the Equal Rights Amendment fully ratified and part of the Constitution, a position that was subsequently rejected by the Office of Legal Counsel and multiple federal courts. Critics argue that this episode exemplifies the ABA’s willingness to prioritize political positions over established legal standards and federal law.
Recent actions by states such as Texas and Florida have further challenged the ABA’s monopoly. Both states have ended the requirement that bar applicants must graduate from an ABA-accredited law school, suggesting that legal markets can function without exclusive reliance on the ABA. Most law schools are already regionally accredited, but a small number of independent schools would need to seek new accreditation if the Department of Education follows through on the staff recommendation.
Supporters of the ABA have argued that removing federal recognition would destabilize legal education and create uncertainty for students and institutions. However, Department of Education staff maintain that compliance with federal standards is a condition of recognition, not a permanent right. The staff emphasized that the ABA, like any accreditor, must adhere to federal law and regulations to retain its status.
As of now, the ABA has not publicly addressed the latest staff report’s findings or recommendations. The Department of Education will consider the staff’s recommendation in upcoming meetings, and any final decision could have far-reaching implications for law schools, students, and the broader legal profession in the United States.
