The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has formally urged the Tennessee Supreme Court to reconsider its reliance on the American Bar Association (ABA) for law school accreditation. In a letter submitted on May 1, 2026, FTC staff, joined by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee and Department of Justice Antitrust Division officials, recommended reforms to open accreditation to competitive alternatives.
The Tennessee Supreme Court had invited comments on whether it should “modify, reduce, or eliminate” its exclusive reliance on ABA accreditation standards to determine which law schools’ graduates can take the state bar examination. Responding to this, the FTC letter described how granting a single professional association like the ABA unchecked authority over accreditation imposes an elitist model that increases the cost of legal education and restricts the supply of lawyers.
By limiting the number of accredited law schools, the ABA’s monopoly potentially reduces legal service availability and affordability, benefiting lawyers within the ABA while disadvantaging consumers seeking lower-cost legal help, the letter claimed. The FTC cited decades of enforcement and advocacy experience, supported by academic commentary, highlighting the anticompetitive effects of such accreditation monopolies.
The letter also referenced a 2025 executive order by former President Donald Trump that called for reforming higher education accreditation to prioritize “high-quality, high-value academic programs focused on student outcomes.” Additionally, it observed that states like Florida and Texas recently removed explicit ABA accreditation requirements, encouraging new accrediting bodies to enter the field.
The FTC encouraged Tennessee and other states to follow these examples by diversifying accreditation and reducing mandatory ABA reliance. The Commission approved the letter’s issuance with a 2-0 vote, reaffirming the FTC’s mission to promote competition and protect consumers in professional licensing and education.
Why it matters
The ABA’s dominant role in law school accreditation directly impacts who can enter the legal profession and at what cost. Reducing its monopoly could lower barriers for law schools and increase the supply of lawyers, potentially improving consumer access to more affordable legal representation. This case forms part of a broader national discussion on the role of accreditation in maintaining competition and consumer choice in professional services.
Background
The ABA has long held exclusive accreditation authority over U.S. law schools, a status that most states use to determine bar eligibility. Critics argue that this control limits innovation and competition in legal education. Recent shifts from states like Florida and Texas, along with federal executive directives, indicate growing momentum toward reforming accreditation systems to better serve public interests.
Sources
This article is based on reporting and publicly available information from the following source:
Read more Politics stories on Goka World News.