by Joseph Brophy for the Maricopa Lawyer, a publication of the Maricopa County Bar Association
In early 2025, the Trump administration set its sights on the American Bar Association. The FTC started the ball rolling by prohibiting its political appointees from holding leadership positions in the ABA, participating the ABA events or renewing their ABA memberships, citing, among other things, the ABA’s “long history of leftist advocacy.”
The FTC’s new policy was quickly followed by clarification from the Department of Education in which the Department took the position that the ABA Standard 206, which required that law schools demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, was unconstitutional under recent United States Supreme Court case law. This change in policy was an unveiled threat to the ABA’s status as the sole authority on the accreditation of law schools, which is a status that is given by the Department and subject to renewal every five years. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, then Attorney General Pamela Bondi accused the ABA of subjecting law faculties and students to unlawful race and sex discrimination and demanded a repeal of the ABA’s DEI polices.
The ABA immediately suspended Standard 206, citing a need to “examine the language of the Standard and its Interpretations in light of the June 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in higher education admissions.” Alas, this did not satisfy the federal government or the courts of certain states.
In early 2026, Texas removed the ABA as the accrediting authority for its law schools, establishing its own criteria and list of approved schools. Florida followed shortly thereafter removing the ABA as the sole accrediting authority for law schools whose graduates may take the bar exam. Alabama has also removed the requirement of graduation from an ABA accredited law school to practice law in that state. Ohio and Tennessee are also reviewing the ABA’s status with an eye towards removing its authority as the sole accrediting authority.
In August 2026, the Department of Education formally recommended that the ABA be stripped of its accreditation authority. The Department alleged in an 86-page memorandum that the ABA is not in compliance with the Department’s regulations and standards as an accreditor of law schools. Among the Department’s very long list of grievances was the fact that the ABA effectively ignored the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision for two years and only acted after being threatened, and even then dragged its feet on correcting the issues identified by the Department. Additionally, the Department believes that other ABA standards violate Department regulations and federal law.
In early September, the ABA’s accreditation council voted 10 to 6 to repeal Standard 206, a decision that is final and will take effect immediately. The repeal of the standard does not prohibit law schools from continuing to prioritize a diverse student body, it simply means that the ABA will no longer mandate that law schools demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to DEI.
The Department of Education has not commented on the repeal of Standard 206. It is therefore unclear whether its repeal will be sufficient to head off federal action to remove the ABA’s accreditation authority. However, the Department’s memo listing its complaints with the ABA was not limited to Standard 206 and was not subtle in communicating the Department’s belief that the ABA is not acting in good faith to comply with the Department’s interpretation of federal law.
The process is not yet complete. This is, after all, still the federal government, which is not a nimble organization. On September 23, 2026, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, a federal advisory committee to the Department, will meet to discuss and vote on the issue. However, NACIQI is only an advisory committee. The ultimate decision still rests with the Department, specifically Undersecretary of Education Nicholas Kent. While Mr. Kent has not publicly commented on the ABA situation specifically, his general comments regarding accreditation of institutions of higher learning suggest he is not a proponent of the status quo.
If the Department continues to move in the same direction it has been heading the last 18 months, the Supreme Court of Arizona may have to move quickly to assess whether it needs to amend or clarify Rule 34 governing the process for applying for admission to practice law in Arizona.
Download the article here.