New Federal Accreditor Rules Arrive as ABA Decision Nears

The U.S. Department of Education published a final rule on October 30 that rewrites how it recognizes accrediting agencies, and it lands while the agency that accredits American law schools is waiting to learn whether it keeps its federal status. The rule does not name the American Bar Association. But one of its central changes, tougher proof that an accreditor is separate from a related trade or membership group, goes to the question at the heart of the ABA council’s review.

For law firms and legal departments, the stakes are indirect but real. Most states require bar applicants to have graduated from an ABA-accredited school, so anything that changes how law schools are accredited eventually reaches hiring pipelines and bar admission.

What the Final Rule Does

The final rule, titled Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization, amends 34 CFR Parts 600, 602 and 668. It is effective July 1, 2027, and the Department is allowing accreditors to adopt its provisions early, starting January 1, 2027. The Department says it implements Executive Order 14279, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, issued April 23, 2025.

According to its summary, the rule removes the “two-year rule” for recognizing new accreditors and drops geographic limits, makes it easier for schools to switch accreditors or use more than one, and says federal recognition gives no immunity from antitrust laws. It adds student outcome expectations such as completion, licensure pass rates and economic returns. It also requires that accreditation decisions be neutral on viewpoint and ideology, except for agencies with a religious mission.

The provision most relevant to the ABA amends Section 602.14 to strengthen the fiscal and administrative criteria an accreditor must meet to show it is fully separate and independent from any related trade or membership organization. The rule gives agencies roughly 20 months, through July 1, 2028, to make those structural changes, with room to raise problems such as existing leases.

The Department received 7,051 comments and says it made no substantive changes from its August proposal, only technical edits. Supporters, as summarized in the rule, said competition among accreditors will strengthen accountability and focus on student outcomes. Opponents warned of a “race to the bottom” in academic quality and argued the changes shift judgments from schools and accreditors to the federal government. The Department disagreed with those concerns.

Where the ABA Council Stands

The council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has been the federally recognized national accreditor for law schools since 1952, according to the ABA Journal. Its five-year renewal is pending. Department staff recommended in August that recognition not be renewed. In September, the Department’s advisory committee, NACIQI, voted to make no recommendation after a debate that focused largely on whether the council is truly separate and independent from the ABA, Inside Higher Ed reported. The decision now rests with Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and is expected by the end of the year, the ABA Journal said.

The two sides have described the process differently. In the Department’s release, as quoted by the ABA Journal, Kent said accreditors have “effectively served as a cartel to protect their interests rather than the educational value that institutions of higher education are expected to deliver for students.” After the September vote, council chair Melissa Hart said in a statement reported by Inside Higher Ed that the council takes its recognition “very seriously” and will keep working with the Department.

“The council is reviewing the new regulations and assessing their impact,” Jaci Devine, communications director for the council, told the ABA Journal.

Timing matters here. The rule says renewal applications submitted before July 1, 2026 are being reviewed under the regulations in place before this rule. It does not say which agencies that covers. Our reading is that the pending decision on the council will be made under the old rules, while the new separation standards would apply at a later review.

Why Lawyers Should Care

Federal recognition matters mainly because it ties law schools to federal student aid. State supreme courts, not the Department, decide who may sit for the bar. The ABA Journal notes that the supreme courts of Tennessee, Alabama, Texas and Florida have moved to break ties with the council, so the question of who vouches for a law school is now being asked at both levels.

The rule itself hints at one alternative. Responding to a commenter who said law school accreditation should be left to the states, the Department wrote: “The Department agrees that this could be an acceptable alternative.” It added that it is “unable to independently foster new competition,” because that requires new accrediting agencies to come forward.

For legal employers, nothing changes today. Over the next few years, though, firms that recruit nationally may see more variation in how states define a qualifying law degree, and if new accreditors seek recognition for legal education, law schools could eventually have more than one option. None has been announced.

Common Questions

Does the new rule strip the ABA of its accreditor role?

No. The rule applies to all accreditors and does not name the ABA. The council’s status depends on a separate decision by the Under Secretary.

When does the rule take effect?

July 1, 2027, with optional early adoption from January 1, 2027. The Department says agencies have until about July 1, 2028 to make the structural changes that the separation requirements may need.

Do bar admission rules change?

Not because of this rule. Bar admission is set by each state’s highest court.

What to Watch

Watch for the Under Secretary’s decision on the council by year end, any legal challenge to the rule, and whether more state supreme courts change how they treat ABA accreditation for bar admission.