The Trump administration is expected to decide by late December whether the American Bar Association’s law school accrediting arm will retain federal recognition. A change in federal status would not automatically stop the ABA from accrediting law schools, nor would it by itself alter state requirements for taking a bar exam. Legal education experts cited by Fox News Digital said the decision could, however, intensify state-level efforts to create other approval routes.
The issue advanced after a September vote by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, a federal advisory panel, ended without a recommendation on whether to renew the ABA accreditor’s recognition. Education Department staff have recommended denying renewal. The decision now rests with Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent. The ABA accrediting arm has had federal recognition since 1952.
Adam Biggs, general counsel of the University of Austin, told Fox News Digital that the federal decision could prompt state supreme courts to consider options beyond ABA accreditation. The ABA has historically been the principal accreditor for U.S. law schools, and many states require bar applicants to graduate from an ABA-approved school. State courts, rather than the federal government, generally determine who may sit for their bar exams.
Texas is developing one possible alternative. The University of Austin is planning a law school that would not seek ABA accreditation. Biggs said the institution is considering a two-year program or a curriculum that combines undergraduate and legal studies. The school intends to offer tuition-free education and avoid federal funding, according to the report. Its proposed staffing model could use practicing lawyers and federal judges as adjunct instructors rather than relying as heavily on full-time faculty.
Biggs said ABA requirements can make it difficult for schools to reduce operating costs, and argued that less expensive programs could make it easier for graduates to work in rural or underserved areas. These are his assessments of the effect of accreditation rules, rather than findings established in the report. Sarah Parshall Perry, an attorney and vice president of Defending Education, also argued that reduced ABA influence could change law school curricula and admissions and hiring practices.
Federal student aid may be less affected for many students than the accreditor’s loss of recognition might suggest. Biggs said most law schools are part of universities that have institutional accreditation of their own, which can support access to federal aid. Perry estimated that about 15 standalone law schools could face funding complications if the ABA loses federal recognition. The report does not identify those schools or provide an independent estimate.
The possibility of practicing across state lines is another concern. A graduate of a school approved through a state process may qualify to take the bar in that state but encounter additional requirements elsewhere, where ABA accreditation may remain the standard. Biggs said wider adoption of alternative systems could eventually lead states to address the portability of law degrees.
Some states have already begun changing their approach. Texas ended exclusive reliance on ABA accreditation for bar eligibility in January, with its Supreme Court taking authority to approve qualifying law schools. Florida adopted its own approach nine days later. Ohio’s Supreme Court proposed a state-run approval process in May, while courts in Tennessee, Alabama and Washington have also taken steps to reduce reliance on ABA approval, according to the source.
The accreditation rules have drawn scrutiny from the Justice Department as well. An Oct. 7 letter from Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward gave the ABA 15 days to revise or justify rules restricting adjunct professors from teaching core courses. The Wall Street Journal reported the letter argued the rules could restrict competition and contribute to higher tuition. The source does not provide the ABA’s response to that letter.
The ABA accrediting council voted 10-6 in September 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 said staff found the accreditor out of compliance with more than 26 federal criteria, including questions about its independence from the broader ABA and its advocacy activity. The ABA disputes the department’s findings and maintains that its accrediting council is independent.
Whatever the federal ruling, states will retain authority over their bar-admission standards. The practical effect for students will therefore depend not only on the decision in Washington but also on whether individual states accept law schools approved through alternative systems.
