Publication
DOJ Antitrust Scrutiny of ABA Law School Accreditation: What Law Schools Need to Know
By Bill Ojile and Samantha Hollinshead
The American Bar Association’s (ABA) long-standing role as the primary accreditor of law schools is now the subject of federal antitrust inquiry. Here is what law schools need to know.
What is Happening
On October 7, 2026, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr. wrote to the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (the “Council”), stating the Antitrust Division “has reason to believe” the Council may be in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.1 The Council is the only Department of Education – recognized law school accreditor.2
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) concern rests on a familiar antitrust principle: ensuring trade associations do not act as accreditors so as to become gatekeepers to the profession.3 However, the ABA disputes this characterization.4 The ABA has long maintained that the Council, as an accreditation body, operates independently of, and separately from, the ABA when carrying out its accreditation responsibilities.5 Separately, the Department of Education, which under the Higher Education Act may limit, suspend, or terminate recognition of accreditors that fail its criteria, including “separate and independent” requirements, is weighing whether the Council meets that test.6
The DOJ targets Standard 403, which requires full-time faculty to teach substantially all first-year coursework and more than half of credit hours (or two-thirds of contact hours).7
First, the DOJ argues Standard 403 may be illegal per se because it allocates instructional responsibilities between full-time and adjunct faculty, suppressing demand for adjunct faculty, reducing their wages, and driving up tuition costs.8 Second, even under the more flexible “rule of reason,” the DOJ sees no procompetitive benefit as adjuncts are often equally as qualified as full-time professors.9
The DOJ has asked the Council to amend Standard 403 based on these considerations. On September 11, 2026, the Council submitted for comment a proposal that would eliminate the first-year coursework requirement.10 However, the credit-hour and contact-hour requirement would remain in Standard 402.11 The Council will meet November 12–14, 2026 to discuss the proposed changes.12
State and Dual Accreditation: Texas and Florida
On January 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas amended Rule 1 so that an “approved law school” means one approved by the Supreme Court of Texas, rather than the ABA.13 Although Texas still requires compliance with Standards 316, 502(a)-(c), 503, and 509,14 losing ABA accreditation does not automatically remove a school from Texas’ approved list.15
On January 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Florida amended Rule 4-13.2, effective October 1, 2026, to accept Department of Education-recognized accreditors, subject to the court’s approval where required.16
However, it is important to note that neither state has established a process for non-ABA accredited schools to seek approval.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has endorsed both Texas17 and Florida’s18 rule changes and encourages other states to take similar steps.
Practical Implications for Law Schools
- Plan for dual compliance. Law schools will need to track ABA requirements alongside a potentially growing set of state-specific requirements. The nearer-term risk is divergence: schools may have to satisfy both systems at once. Where requirements differ, schools should generally meet the more demanding criteria so that they remain in good standing under both. Incorporating this review into annual compliance planning will help schools identify and resolve conflicting requirements before they create accreditation problems.
- Protect portability. ABA accreditation remains the safest option for degree portability. Schools should closely monitor rule changes to ensure graduates’ eligibility is not at risk. Schools should also speak with students early about the states in which they plan to seek bar admission, so they understand the jurisdiction-specific requirements in advance.
- Revisit staffing models and budgets. Standards 402 and 403 are likely to change soon, either through the revisions the Council will consider at its November meeting or through federal enforcement. Schools should factor these possible changes into upcoming staffing considerations and budget discussions.
- Prepare for inquiries. Schools could receive third-party subpoenas or Civil Investigative Demands19 about their accreditation and related communications. Schools should identify and preserve relevant communications now, including correspondence with the Council and the ABA, and should consult counsel before responding to any government requests.
- Engage in rulemaking processes. When states or the Council propose revisions to their rules, schools should participate in the process. Schools should be prepared to address the financial and operational challenges that multiple accreditation regimes may impose, particularly if a school cannot comply simultaneously with competing accreditation standards. Public comment periods are the most effective opportunity to share practical perspectives and shape the final rules before they take effect.
The Bottom Line
This is a quickly evolving issue, and law schools that assess their exposure early will be best positioned to adapt as the rules change. Key milestones to watch include the Council’s November 12–14, 2026 meeting and the DOJ’s next steps following the ABA’s response.
Footnotes
-
Letter from Stanley E. Woodward, Jr., Assoc. Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., to Melissa Hart, Chair, Council of the Section of Legal Educ. & Admissions to the Bar, Am. Bar Ass’n, at 1 (Oct. 7, 2026) [hereinafter DOJ Letter].
-
DOJ Letter at 2 (stating that the Council “is the only accreditor in the United States that is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for the accreditation of law schools”).
-
DOJ Letter at 3 (citing Alvord-Polk, Inc. v. F. Schumacher & Co., 37 F.3d 996, 1007 (3d Cir. 1994)).
-
Barbara J. Howard, ABA and Its Accreditation Council Have Distinct, Essential Roles, ABA News (Oct. 21, 2026) [hereinafter Howard Op-Ed].
-
Id.
-
See 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(a)(3) (requiring accrediting agencies to be “separate and independent, both administratively and financially of any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or membership organization”); id. § 1099b(l)(1) (authorizing the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, to “limit, suspend, or terminate” the Department’s recognition of an accrediting agency for noncompliance).
-
DOJ Letter at 4 (quoting ABA Standard 403(a)).
-
Id. at 4–5 (describing Standard 403 as “potentially constitut[ing] a per se market allocation” and stating that it “artificially suppresses demand for adjunct faculty” and “may raise the cost of legal education for students”).
-
Id. at 4 (stating that the restraint “does not appear to have obvious procompetitive potential” and that “adjunct faculty often have more practical legal experience”).
-
Memorandum from Melissa Hart on the Matters for Notice and Comment: Revisions to Standards for Approval of Law Schools – Deadline October 12, 2026 to Interested Parties and Entities (Sep. 11, 2026).
-
Id. at 2–3.
-
Id. at 1.
-
Final Approval of Amendments to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas, Misc. Docket No. 26-9002 (Tex. Jan. 6, 2026) [hereinafter Texas Order].
-
Notably, Texas does not require compliance with Standard 403.
-
Texas Order at ¶¶ 5, 6(c).
-
In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, No. SC2025-2064, (Fla. Jan. 15, 2026).
-
Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Endorses Texas Supreme Court’s Proposed Rule Change Eliminating ABA’s Monopoly Control Over Bar Admission (Dec. 2, 2025).
-
Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Endorses Florida Supreme Court Action Eliminating the ABA’s Bar Admission Monopoly (Mar. 31, 2026).
-
See Press Release, Off. of the Tex. Att’y Gen., Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates the American Bar Association Over Potential Anticompetitive Conduct in Accreditation of Law Schools (Sep. 30, 2026) (“As part of the investigation, the Office of the Attorney General has issued a Civil Investigative Demand (‘CID’) to the ABA.”).
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 550 attorneys practicing in 18 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and San Diego, California; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno-Tahoe, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos and Mexico City in Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
