ABA Should Remain the Accreditor of U.S. Law Schools

President Ronald C. Minkoff of the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) today issued this statement urging that the American Bar Association’s Council on the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (the “ABA Council”) be permitted to remain the federally recognized accreditor of U.S. law schools.  The current Administration’s move toward eliminating the ABA Council’s role in accrediting law schools, possibly replacing it with nationwide accreditation by the federal government, represents a threat to law schools’ academic freedom and the legal profession’s independence.

 For many months. the Administration has been taking dead aim at the organized Bar in general and the American Bar Association in particular, in an obvious effort to undermine their power and influence.  The Administration’s most recent effort has involved the Department of Education, whose National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (“NACIQI”) held a contentious hearing last week on whether to strip the ABA Council of its authority to accredit law schools.  “Ed. Dept. Committee Sidesteps ABA Accreditation Issue”, Law360, 9/24/26.  The Administration’s move has long been supported by the Federalist Society and other conservative commentators, whose central objection has been to the ABA Council’s former Standard 206, which encouraged law schools to adopt DEI standards for admissions.  S. P. Perry, “The ABA is Stretching the Limits of Law with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Rule,” May 16, 2022.  These commentators also object to the ABA Council’s requirements on teaching about “bias, racism and cross-cultural competency”, and consider the ABA’s accreditation power an illegal delegation of governmental authority to a private association that they believe inappropriately furthers progressive ideology.

The Administration’s support for these views has meant that this debate is no longer limited to the world of academia.  In the past year, two states – Florida and Texas – have opted to no longer require bar applicants to have attended an ABA-accredited law school in order to sit for their bar exams.  Given that most states continue to have the accreditation requirement, even to waive into their bars, this has caused a great deal of tension and uncertainty as students in Florida and Texas do not know how portable their bar exam results will be.

Following up on President Trump’s April 2025 executive order directing the Secretary of Education to “investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American law schools that is advanced by the [ABA] Council,” NACIQI ordered last week’s hearings.  The ABA Council responded by eliminating Standard 206, despite a vote by the ABA House of Delegates in August 2026 to maintain that Standard.  (In order to maintain its impartiality, the ABA Council has a large degree of independence and is not required to follow directives of the ABA’s House of Delegates or Board of Governors.) 

NYCLA’s delegation at the ABA House of Delegates voted to keep Standard 206, as it is consistent with NYCLA’s core value of having a diverse, multi-ethnic, gender inclusive Bar reflecting the public it serves.  But in my view, even without Standard 206, there are many reasons why the ABA, as a truly national Bar association, should remain in charge of law school accreditation.  First, a system where each state has its own accreditation standards is the equivalent of having no standard at all and will make some states reluctant to accept the educational qualifications of Bar applicants who attended law schools in other states.  Limiting the portability of bar exam results is, in my view, a terrible idea in an age when practicing across state lines is an everyday occurrence.  Second, a system of federal government accreditation of law schools would allow accreditation standards to shift with the political winds, far more than they do under the ABA Council’s guidance.  Third, the ABA Council has decades of experience in accrediting law schools; its processes are well understood in academia.  Fourth, and finally, the accreditation of law schools should be determined by lawyers and law professors, people who actually understand the practice of law – not whatever administration happens to be in office. 

It is curious that an administration which seeks to deregulate so many functions of government is seeking to assume this particular private responsibility that has functioned so well for so long.   In short, the cure the Administration is offering is far worse than the supposed disease.

# # #

This statement has been issued by the NYCLA President. It has not been reviewed by NYCLA‘s full Board of Directors and does not necessarily represent its views.