Staff Reports
The Department of Education just handed a major victory to anyone tired of one Washington-approved group deciding who gets to be a lawyer. Federal staff recommended stripping the American Bar Association of its special federal recognition for accrediting law schools. In plain English: the ABA’s monopoly on law school approval is on the chopping block, and it can’t blame anyone but itself.
What the Department found — and why it matters
Department of Education staff released a long review that says the ABA’s accreditation operation is out of compliance with federal rules. The report points to two big problems: the ABA mixed advocacy with its accreditation work, and its diversity-and-equity rules pushed politics into credentialing. The assistant secretary for postsecondary education called it what conservatives have been saying for years — a cartel that can inject political preferences into who becomes a lawyer.
The bar exam and the real power
Most Americans don’t realize how much power the ABA really has. It doesn’t control federal student aid for most law schools — it controls who can sit for the bar exam in most states. That’s the lever that kept every law school racing to please the ABA. States like Texas decided they weren’t going to wait for Washington and began moving away from ABA-only rules. That shift matters because it gives states back the power to decide who trains lawyers in their schools, instead of a single national body imposing ideology.
The ABA scrambled — and that tells you everything
When the report landed, the ABA’s accreditation council suddenly voted to roll back the very diversity and bias rules that drew fire. Funny timing. They trimmed nondiscrimination language and pulled back a rule about teaching bias and cross-cultural competency. But a last-minute reversal after years of pushing those policies looks like damage control, not contrition. The agency will get its day with a federal advisory committee soon, but the scramble exposed how fragile the ABA’s claim to neutrality has become.
What comes next and why conservatives should care
This is just the start. Staff made a recommendation; an advisory committee will review it, an undersecretary will weigh in, and a final decision follows. Even so, the message is clear: Washington can and should stop federal recognition when an accreditor acts like a political activist. Conservatives who want schools judged on results and competence, not ideology, should welcome this. Let states and students judge quality, not a self-appointed national cartel that treated diversity mandates like holy writ.
The stakes are bigger than a regulatory fight. This move could weaken a decades-old chokehold on legal licensing and open the door for new accreditors, more state control, and fewer ideological litmus tests in legal education. If the ABA wants to survive with credibility, it will have to prove it deserves recognition — not demand it as a right. That’s a reform worth supporting.
