While concerns were raised about the appearance of potential partisan bias because the Council is structurally housed under the ABA umbrella, no explanation was given as to what had changed under the law so that what had been legally sufficient for more than three decades to establish independence was no longer sufficient. Those who spoke against continued recognition focused mostly about the American Bar Association and not on the actions of the Council. The concerns coming from state supreme courts, legal employers, law schools, and others about the impact the unraveling of the national accreditation of law schools might have on portability and mobility was raised in comments, but did not seem to be considered by many Committee members. Committee members also did not seem focused on concerns around quality and the reported possible predatory practices of some unaccredited schools (e.g., highlighted in a comment by Veterans Education Access), or for that matter the benefits of national data collection.

You can read coverage here: Michael Bender, American Bar Association Fights to Keep Power to Vet Law Schools, The New York Times, September 24, 2026; see also Natalie Schwartz, Federal Advisory Panel Dodges Decision on ABA’s Accreditation Arm, Higher Ed Dive, September 25, 2026; Christine Charnosky, DOE Committee Punts Decision About ABA’s Accrediting Authority Following 7-Hour Hearing, Law.com, September 23, 2026; Jessica Blake, Accreditor Panel Tables Vote on ABA Recognition, Inside Higher Ed, September 23, 2026.

Pages: 1 2