The US Justice Department has warned the American Bar Association that it could face an antitrust investigation unless it revises accreditation standards restricting the use of part-time law professors, escalating the Trump administration’s confrontation with the organization over its influence on legal education.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward outlined the department’s concerns in an Oct. 7 letter to the ABA’s law school accreditation council, according to an Oct. 13 report by The Wall Street Journal. The letter gave the association 15 days to modify its faculty requirements or demonstrate that they comply with federal competition law.
The warning centers on rules governing how law schools allocate teaching responsibilities between permanent faculty and adjunct instructors. Justice Department officials contend that the restrictions reduce institutional flexibility, discourage the use of experienced legal practitioners and contribute to higher education costs.
Under the ABA’s existing standards, full-time professors must provide substantially all instruction during the initial third of a law student’s coursework. Woodward questioned whether that requirement serves a legitimate educational purpose, arguing that adjunct instructors can offer comparable instruction while bringing professional experience from outside academia.
The Justice Department also maintains that employing more part-time instructors could help law schools contain expenses, according to the Journal.
Woodward, who has taught as an adjunct professor at Catholic University, indicated that the rule could restrict his own ability to teach first-year law students, the newspaper reported.
The department has not announced a formal antitrust case. However, Woodward warned that an inadequate response from the ABA could prompt additional investigative action.
ABA Faces Pressure to Revise Faculty Standards
The dispute comes as the ABA considers changes to its accreditation requirements.
In September, the organization proposed eliminating the provision that reserves most instruction during the first third of legal studies for full-time faculty members.
The replacement standard would still require permanent professors to deliver more than half of a law school’s credit hours or account for at least two-thirds of student contact hours, according to the Journal.
Woodward’s correspondence suggested that the proposed revisions might not fully address the Justice Department’s competition concerns.
A spokesperson for the ABA’s accreditation council said the organization intends to respond to the department, the Journal reported. The association has not publicly committed to further changes in response to the warning.
The dispute highlights competing considerations in legal education. Accreditation standards establish common expectations for academic programs, while restrictions on faculty composition can affect staffing decisions and operating costs.
The Justice Department’s argument that greater reliance on adjunct professors could reduce tuition remains a contention rather than an established outcome. The financial effects of changing the rules would depend on how individual institutions adjust their teaching arrangements.
Trump Administration Challenges Accreditation Authority
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
The antitrust warning adds to a broader effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to reduce the ABA’s authority over legal education.
The Education Department has separately pursued steps that could end federal recognition of the association’s law school accreditation council, according to the Journal. Such a decision could have significant consequences for institutions that rely on recognized accreditation to participate in federal student-aid programs.
ABA accreditation also plays a central role in determining eligibility for professional licensing examinations in many states.
Texas has already moved away from that system. Earlier this year, the state adopted an alternative process for determining which law schools qualify graduates to seek admission to the legal profession, according to Reuters.
The Trump administration and Republican officials have criticized the ABA over its positions on politically contentious issues, including affirmative action, abortion rights and transgender health care.
The organization has also challenged the administration in court over federal actions targeting prominent law firms, adding to tensions between the government and the legal profession.
Scrutiny has extended beyond Washington. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a separate investigation in September into whether ABA accreditation requirements increase educational costs, discourage alternative training models and restrict competition among law schools, Reuters reported.
Accreditation Dispute Raises Broader Competition Questions
The latest confrontation also revives longstanding antitrust questions surrounding the ABA’s oversight of legal education.
In 1995, the Justice Department brought a civil antitrust case alleging that the association’s accreditation process had been used to protect faculty economic interests. The matter resulted in a settlement and consent decree. Federal authorities later pursued enforcement action over violations of that agreement.
The current dispute focuses more narrowly on whether faculty staffing requirements improperly constrain competition and prevent law schools from adopting less expensive instructional models.
For the ABA, the immediate challenge is to defend the educational justification for its standards while preserving its longstanding accreditation role.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Add as Preferred Source