In a small victory for a republican form of government, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an order to potentially eliminate the American Bar Association’s (ABA) monopoly over law-school accreditation.
The order, issued on October 2, declares that “the Court has decided to amend Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7 to further reduce reliance on ABA accreditation.” Supreme Court Rule 7 currently requires law schools to be “accredited by the ABA” in order for their graduates to be eligible to join the Tennessee Bar, effectively giving the ABA a monopoly over practicing law in the Volunteer State.
The court will change the rule to require law schools to be “accredited by an Approved Accreditor.” It noted that under the proposed change, “the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar will remain an approved accreditor at this time, but the Court will consider adding additional or alternative accreditors to the list of Approved Accreditors in the future, including other state supreme courts.”
Other States Act
The Supreme Court of Tennessee’s order comes amid other states’ actions to limit the ABA’s power. Reuters reports:
The Supreme Court of Florida announced a similar change in January, and the Supreme Court of Ohio in May said it plans to follow suit. Texas has developed its own list of approved law schools while Alabama is now relying on recognition by other state supreme courts instead of the ABA.
We reported on the Supreme Court of Texas’ decision regarding ABA accreditation in the October 3, 2025 “Insider Report.”
ABA Under Federal Scrutiny
The federal government is also taking steps to rein in the ABA’s power. On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. secretary of education to “assess whether to suspend or terminate the … status [of the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar] as an accrediting agency [for law schools] under Federal law.” In August 2026, the U.S. Department of Education released a report recommending that the ABA lose its accrediting status, although it has not yet made a decision.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has also acted to rein in the ABA. In May 2025, it announced that it would no longer follow the ABA’s ratings process for federal judicial nominees, and the prior month it prohibited its attorneys from attending or speaking at ABA events. The DOJ also pressured the ABA to end its “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) requirement for law schools, which it did in September 2026.
Contrary to Americanist Principles
As the ABA’s DEI requirement demonstrated, the organization holds a strong bias against conservative and traditionalist principles. It is not hyperbole to describe its accumulation of significant quasi-governmental power over the legal/judicial profession as a threat to America’s founding principles.
In addition to the inherent problem of giving a nongovernmental organization such enormous power over our government, the influence of the ABA and its state-level equivalents also undermines a republican form of government in favor of technocracy (“rule by technical experts”). For example, unelected lawyers affiliated with the ABA or state bar associations often dominate state judicial nominating commissions. The New American has previously reported about such commissions:
During the 20th century, a new method for selecting judges — albeit one just as repugnant to republican government — grew in popularity: judicial “merit selection,” also called the “Missouri Plan” after the state that first adopted it in 1940. Under this method, judicial nominating commissions, usually composed of unelected lawyers, select a handful of judicial nominees. The state governor must choose one of the pre-selected nominees, and cannot consider alternatives. Although its supporters claim it leads to more qualified judges, judicial merit selection is a major example of technocracy, since unelected “experts,” rather than elected representatives, make important decisions under this system. Furthermore, judges appointed under this system lean toward the left when compared to those appointed under other systems. For example, in a 2009 law-review paper, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt University argued that, because of “the powerful role it accords lawyers and, in particular, state bar associations,” merit selection “may simply move the politics of judicial selection into closer alignment with the ideological preferences of the bar,” which leans left. And in an in-depth 2017 study, Fitzpatrick found that states using merit selection or nonpartisan elections had judiciaries “skewed to the left” compared to “the public at large in those states.”
States must return to upholding a republican form of government in their policies and institutions. The Supreme Court of Tennessee’s action is a good — albeit small — step in the right direction.
This article is part of The New American’s weekly online newsletter Insider Report, which is emailed to TNA subscribers each week. Click here to subscribe to The New American to receive the Insider Report and access exclusive content.
