Becoming a lawyer could get cheaper and faster under looming Trump admin shakeup

Trump Administration to Decide by December on Federal Recognition of American Bar Association’s Accrediting Arm

WASHINGTON – The Department of Education is poised to announce a ruling on whether the American Bar Association’s (ABA) law‑school accrediting arm will retain its federally recognized status, a decision expected by the end of December. The move, if taken, would not automatically end ABA accreditation or alter state bar‑admission requirements but could speed up a growing trend of states creating alternative pathways for legal education.

The debate centers on whether the ABA’s accrediting body should be recognized by the federal government as a “competent authority” for purposes such as student‑loan eligibility. The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) voted in September in a 3‑3 split to recommend that the ABA’s recognition not be renewed. Education Department staff have already urged denial of renewal, and the final decision will be made by Under Secretary Nicholas Kent.

A Gatekeeper Under Scrutiny

The ABA has overseen law‑school accreditation since 1952, and most U.S. states still require graduates of ABA‑accredited schools to sit for the bar exam. Critics argue that the organization’s stringent standards—especially its faculty requirements and diversity mandates—drive up costs and limit innovation.

Adam Biggs, general counsel at the University of Austin, said to Fox News Digital, “I think the biggest thing is, everyone should know that the federal recognition of the ABA is just the first step. If they get knocked off their perch, that’s going to supercharge the conversations of these state supreme courts to create alternative pathways that are not just the ABA.” He explained that the current model “makes it impossible to cut overhead, and it’s going to be an expensive product…Because you need to live in a big city to go work at a firm to pay off your massive amount of debt.”

Biggs is part of a team developing a new law school at the University of Austin that would operate without ABA accreditation. The proposed program could be a two‑year course or a combined undergraduate‑law track, with tuition set to be free and no reliance on federal funding. The school would also lean heavily on practicing attorneys and judges as adjunct instructors, rather than the full‑time faculty structures that ABA standards require.

Impact on Student Loans

While the loss of federal recognition would not automatically disqualify law‑school graduates from federal student loans, it could affect a handful of standalone schools that rely solely on ABA accreditation for institutional status. Biggs noted, “So unless you are a freestanding law school that only relies on the ABA, your students are gonna be fine.” Attorney and VP of nonprofit Defending Education, Sarah Parshall Perry, estimated that roughly 15 such schools could face complications with federal aid if the ABA’s accreditation arm loses recognition.

Perry told Fox News Digital, “These law students are actually going to get a better education because we get the ABA meddling away from curricular inclusions. If we get away from the race mandates in admissions and in hiring and promotions, we get back to ground zero on making excellent lawyers.” She added, “I don’t care what color my attorney is if I get in a car crash. I am very concerned that he recognizes principles of contract law and insurance liability. That’s what matters most.”

State‑Level Alternatives

In recent years several states have begun moving away from exclusive reliance on ABA accreditation. Texas became the first in January to let its Supreme Court approve qualifying law schools; Florida followed nine days later. Ohio’s Supreme Court proposed a state‑run approval process in May, and courts in Tennessee, Alabama and Washington have taken steps toward similar reforms.

The University of Austin’s model reflects a broader push in Texas to offer cheaper, shorter legal education outside the ABA’s traditional framework. By eliminating federal funding and reducing overhead, proponents hope to address attorney shortages in rural and underserved communities, where graduates often struggle to sustain high student‑loan debt.

Federal Oversight and Antitrust Concerns

The Justice Department has also scrutinized the ABA’s rules regarding adjunct professors, citing potential antitrust violations. In an October 7 letter, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward gave the ABA 15 days to revise or justify its restrictions on adjuncts teaching core law courses, arguing that the limitations restrict competition and contribute to higher tuition costs.

In September, the ABA’s accrediting council voted 10‑6 to repeal Standard 206, which required law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion among students, faculty, and staff. The move came amid concerns that the Department of Education might strip the organization of federal recognition.

Looking Ahead

The Department’s decision will not end the ABA’s accreditation function outright. The organization could continue to accredit law schools, leaving states to decide whether to maintain their existing reliance on ABA approval or embrace alternative pathways. As states grapple with questions of portability—how graduates from non‑ABA‑approved schools can practice in other jurisdictions—more jurisdictions may feel pressure to reconsider their requirements.

“The eventual landscape may see a very large group of states that are not ABA or nothing,” Biggs said. “They’re going to have to come to the table and figure out how portability is going to work.”

With the decision set for late December, legal scholars, lawmakers and students alike will be watching closely to see whether the federal government’s stance will reshape the structure and cost of legal education across the country.