Ohio’s Advisory Committee Urged to Eliminate ABA as Law School Accrediting Body
August 24, 2025
COLUMBUS, OH – A growing movement is pressuring Ohio’s newly formed Advisory Committee on Law School Accreditation to recommend removing the American Bar Association (ABA) as the accrediting authority for the state’s nine law schools. Spearheaded by America First Legal (AFL) and supported by conservative legal advocates, the push cites the ABA’s alleged ideological bias and controversial diversity policies as reasons to sever ties, echoing similar efforts in Florida and Texas.
The Push to End ABA Accreditation
On August 19, 2025, AFL, in partnership with law firm Ashbrooke, Byrne, Kresge, Flowers, LLC, sent a letter to the Ohio Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee, urging it to eliminate the ABA’s role in accrediting Ohio’s law schools. The committee, established in July 2025 by Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy, is tasked with reviewing the accreditation process to ensure “excellence and innovation” in legal education. AFL argues that the ABA’s Standard 206, which mandates diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, promotes “discriminatory” race- and sex-based practices that violate federal law, particularly following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
The letter cites specific examples, including an Ohio law school dean’s response to ABA demands for diversity, which outlined targeted minority enrollment through institutional grants and plans to “restore gender balance” in admissions. AFL contends that such practices, driven by ABA requirements, conflict with anti-discrimination laws and demonstrate partisan bias. “The ABA has disqualified itself from continuing to be the gatekeeper of law school accreditation,” the letter states.
Ohio’s Advisory Committee and Its Mandate
The Ohio Supreme Court created the Advisory Committee in response to growing national scrutiny of the ABA’s accreditation authority, following similar reviews in Florida and Texas. Chaired by Robert W. Horner III, the committee includes prominent figures such as Ohio State Bar Association CEO Mary Amos Augsburger, Moritz College of Law Dean Kent Barnett, and Akron School of Law Dean Emily Janoski-Haehlen. Its mission is to evaluate accreditation standards and explore alternatives that better serve Ohio’s legal profession.
The committee’s formation aligns with a broader pushback against the ABA, fueled by a Trump administration executive order on April 23, 2025, criticizing accreditors for promoting DEI standards deemed unlawful. Ohio, with its nine ABA-accredited law schools, is now a key battleground in this debate.
Arguments For and Against ABA Accreditation
Proponents of Removing the ABA
Advocates like AFL argue that the ABA’s DEI mandates, particularly Standard 206, force law schools to prioritize race and gender over merit, risking legal violations. They point to the ABA’s temporary suspension of Standard 206 until August 31, 2026, as evidence of its vulnerability to legal challenges but warn that the policy could be reinstated under a future administration. Posts on X, such as one from @America1stLegal, amplify this view, claiming the ABA’s policies “disqualify it as an accrediting authority.”
Critics also highlight the ABA’s broader influence, including its role in setting high tuition costs and limiting innovation in legal education. They argue that state-led accreditation could allow for more flexible, cost-effective models while maintaining rigor.
Defenders of the ABA
The ABA and its supporters, including Jennifer Rosato Perea, managing director of accreditation and legal education, emphasize the value of national accreditation for ensuring portable law degrees. “National accreditation benefits law students, graduates, state courts, and the profession,” Perea said, noting that removing the ABA could harm Ohio graduates’ ability to practice in other states. A letter from eight Texas law school deans, cited in Ohio discussions, warned that ending ABA accreditation could lower employment rates and damage institutional reputations.
The ABA also defends its accreditation process as rigorous and independent, recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the sole accreditor for U.S. law schools. It argues that its standards ensure quality and consistency, critical for bar admission in most states.
Broader Context and National Trends
Ohio’s review follows similar moves in Florida and Texas, where state supreme courts are questioning the ABA’s monopoly on accreditation. Florida established a working group in March 2025 to study alternatives, while Texas solicited public comments, generating 392 pages of responses. Both states cited concerns over the ABA’s DEI policies and alignment with the Trump administration’s push to curb federal recognition of accreditors engaging in “unlawful discrimination.”
The ABA has faced additional scrutiny, with Attorney General Pam Bondi in February 2025 threatening to rescind its accreditation authority over Standard 206’s conflict with the Harvard ruling. The ABA’s response, supported by over 50 bar associations, defended its role and criticized efforts to undermine the legal profession.
Potential Implications for Ohio
If Ohio’s Advisory Committee recommends eliminating the ABA’s role, it could lead to a state-specific accreditation system, potentially reducing costs and increasing flexibility for law schools. However, critics warn this could limit graduates’ mobility, as most states require ABA-accredited degrees for bar admission. Data from California, where non-ABA-accredited schools exist, shows lower bar passage rates, suggesting challenges in maintaining quality without national standards.
The committee’s recommendations, expected in early 2026, could reshape Ohio’s legal education landscape and influence other states. For now, the debate underscores a broader clash between federal and state authority, ideological priorities, and the future of legal education.
Sources: Law.com, America First Legal, ABA Journal, Reuters, Supreme Court of Ohio