The future of the nation’s primary law school accreditor now rests in the hands of the Trump Education Department after a federal panel deadlocked 8-8 on whether to strip the American Bar Association (ABA) of its gatekeeper status following dozens of federal compliance failures.
The deadlock hands the decision to Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent, who has up to 90 days to decide whether to revoke the ABA’s decades-long accreditation monopoly over roughly 200 law schools nationwide. In a statement to Fox News Digital, a Department of Education spokesperson confirmed that staff had already recommended stripping the ABA’s gatekeeper status after finding the group out of compliance with “more than 26 recognition criteria.”
The advisory body — known formally as the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) — advises the Education Department on whether higher education accreditors meet federal standards. NACIQI Chairman Jay Greene told Fox News Digital that while the panel split 8-8 on what action to take, committee members across the board shared a core concern over how the ABA is structured.
“The primary issue that troubled all members of NACIQI is that the ABA accrediting body is clearly not separate and independent from the ABA as a whole,” Greene said, noting that federal law requires institutional accreditors to operate independently of trade associations. “Everyone on the committee agreed that this was a problem that required changes. The main divide was over whether the ABA was willing and able to take those steps to remedy the problem or not.”
WATCH: BRANDON GILL CORNERS LAW SCHOOL GATEKEEPER WITH DEI QUESTION SHE WON’T ANSWER
Responding to panel criticisms of chronic noncompliance, Melissa Hart, chair of the ABA Accreditation Council, defended the organization’s historic track record.
“The Council has been continuously recognized by the Department of Education since 1952, being found in compliance during every regular recognition cycle for the past 74 years,” Hart said in a statement. “We take accreditation and our recognition as an accreditor very seriously, and we continue to be a reliable authority for accrediting J.D. programs.”
However, legal advocacy groups argue the ABA’s structural defects and recent policy shifts render it unfit to serve as an industry gatekeeper. Reed Rubinstein, senior vice president of America First Legal and former general counsel at the Department of Education, told Fox News Digital that the ABA has “disqualified itself and undermined public faith and trust in the legal profession.”
Rubinstein also dismissed the ABA’s recent move to repeal its controversial diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) accreditation standard as a “ruse to retain power,” arguing it does not cure the underlying legal flaws.
“The DEI accreditation standard, from the moment it was adopted, conflicted with controlling Supreme Court rulings and the plain text of the Civil Rights Act,” Rubinstein said, urging the Trump administration to permanently strip the ABA of its federal status. “The ABA’s leadership has made it clear, publicly and otherwise, that it will return to its unlawful ideological agenda at its first opportunity.”
For more than 70 years, the ABA has operated as the sole federally recognized accreditor for U.S. law schools, granting the organization a near-monopoly over the legal profession. In almost every state, students must graduate from an ABA-accredited law school to be eligible to sit for the bar exam. Furthermore, the federal government uses the ABA’s accreditation as the gatekeeper for Title IV federal student aid, meaning law schools must secure the group’s stamp of approval for their students to receive federal loans.
If Under Secretary Kent ultimately moves to strip the ABA of its recognition, the decision would effectively break that national monopoly. While law schools affiliated with larger universities could rely on their broader institutional accreditors to maintain access to federal financial aid, roughly a dozen stand-alone law schools would be forced to scramble for alternative accreditation. State supreme courts would also face immediate pressure to rewrite their bar admission rules to allow graduates from non-ABA schools to take the exam.
Some states have already begun taking matters into their own hands to bypass the ABA’s grip. Because the legal profession is regulated directly by the judicial branch, state supreme courts hold the ultimate authority to set educational requirements for bar admission.
In January, Texas became the first state in the nation to eliminate its reliance on the ABA for law school accreditation, with the Texas Supreme Court finalizing a rule to take over the approval process itself. Just nine days later, the Florida Supreme Court followed suit.
By cutting ties with the organization, the Texas high court announced it would judge law schools on “simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria” rather than the ABA’s mandates deemed by many as politically-driven.
Other states are now catching on to the rebellion against the ABA. The Ohio Supreme Court formally proposed amendments in May to establish a state-run accreditation process, while supreme courts in Tennessee, Alabama and Washington have all recently taken steps to bypass the organization’s monopoly.
“The ABA’s cartel-like control over law school accreditation drives up costs, limits access, and pushes ridiculous ideological mandates over merit,” Trump’s DOJ said earlier this year. “Ending the Tennessee Supreme Court’s exclusive reliance will expand opportunity AND lower costs.”
Rubinstein noted that transferring authority back to the states marks a long-overdue correction for legal education.
“State supreme courts are ultimately responsible for certifying and disciplining attorneys—there is arguably no need for a middleman,” Rubinstein told Fox News Digital. “By returning actual authority over legal education directly to the courts themselves… the result should be a better-quality education for attorneys and more accountability and transparency for the public.”
