The American Bar Association (ABA) has been accrediting law schools in the United States for 105 years, since 1921. Its role was federally recognized 74 years ago, in 1952. Currently, there are 198 accredited law schools, which represent the vast majority of law schools in the country. For fully accredited schools, the ABA conducts a comprehensive on-site inspection and evaluation every 10 years. For schools that have been provisionally accredited, the ABA conducts more frequent on-site inspections. A graduate of an ABA-accredited law school is permitted to sit for the bar exam in any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories.
While the ABA accredits schools, the actual licensing of lawyers is a function performed by each State, through a process designed and administered by the state’s highest court. Thus, while the ABA itself does not license lawyers, it plays a pivotal role in the licensing process by way of the universal acceptance described above. This gives graduates of ABA-accredited law schools much flexibility over graduates of the few law schools that do not carry an ABA accreditation. It also relieves the States of the burden of assessing the pedigree of the law school attended by an applicant seeking to become licensed in that state.
National news reports this past week indicate that the Trump Administration is seeking to dislodge the ABA of its accreditation authority. Currently, this movement has been formally scheduled for consideration by the U.S. Department of Education at an upcoming meeting at its National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), September 23-24, 2026.
Many organizations, factions, and entities are taking a position on issue – both in opposition and in favor. The public has an opportunity to submit comments and make requests for oral presentations prior to September 16.
What will result if the Trump Administration gets its wishes?
The quick answer is that the ultimate authority to license lawyers will not change, because that authority will continue to rest with the highest court of each state. But, the requirements for becoming licensed would most likely undergo significant review and be subject to change.
The highest court of each state would need to re-evaluate the criteria utilized for bar applicants. This could result in a required individual assessment of each and every law school. To some degree, this has already been occurring on a very limited basis. For example, in California, there are non-accredited schools whose graduates are permitted to take the California bar exam, as is determined by the California Supreme Court. Other states, including Alabama, Tennessee, Vermont and Massachusetts, similarly permit graduates of non-accredited law school to take the exam.
One very important ramification of this proposal lies in the realization that ABA accreditation is universally accepted across the states, even though it may not be universally required. With the removal of ABA accreditation, the long-held benefit of universal eligibility for bar admission (through graduation from an ABA-accredited law school) may disappear or, at the very least, likely evolve in material ways.
For those who believe that there are already too many lawyers in society, this may be palatable. For those who seek to become lawyers, this will likely be a deterrent.
In the mix is also the question: what will the impact be on the quality of law school education? Will it diminish if law schools no longer need to undergo periodic inspections?
It also bears noting that there is another accrediting agency for law schools — the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) which is a voluntary, nonprofit professional association of law schools and legal educators. Currently, 174 law schools are members of the AALS. Like the ABA, the AALS also performs periodic inspections with its own site evaluations teams, but these are “intended to complement, not duplicate, the ABA accreditation process.” It is possible the AALS and its inspections could play a more prominent role in the state-by-state licensing process.
The ultimate question, therefore, is not simply whether the ABA should continue to accredit law schools. The more important question is what would replace the system that has existed for more than a century. If the ABA’s authority is removed, the states will remain responsible for determining who may practice law, but they may face the difficult task of deciding, state by state, which law schools meet the educational standards necessary for admission to the bar. That could produce greater flexibility, but it could also produce a system that is less uniform, less predictable, and less portable for law school graduates.
Whatever one’s view, eliminating the role of the ABA in accreditation would not eliminate the need for accreditation. It would simply shift the responsibility – and potentially create an entirely new system.
Anyone desiring to communicate with the Author, may do so by sending an e-mail to the author at rogermbaron@gmail.com .
Note: In regard to the preparation of this week’s column, the author would like to thank Michael Heise, William G. McRoberts Professor in the Empirical Study of Law, Cornell Law School, Attorney Sarah Baron Houy, and Claudia Baron for their assistance and input.
Anyone desiring to communicate with the Author, may do so by sending an e-mail to the author at rogermbaron@gmail.com .
Roger Baron is a guest columnist for the Rapid City Post. Opinions expressed may not necessarily represent the views of the Rapid City Post, its affiliates, or advertisers.
