FTC and DOJ Press Tennessee Court to Cut ABA Gatekeeping

Federal competition officials say the state's bar rules give one lawyers' group too much control over who can enter the profession.

Nashville, Tennessee - Federal Trade Commission staff and Justice Department officials urged the Tennessee Supreme Court to reduce its reliance on American Bar Association law school accreditation, arguing that the current bar-admission structure limits competition in legal education and constrains the supply of lawyers.

The May 1 filing turns a state court rulemaking into a test of professional licensing power. At issue is whether Tennessee should continue to treat ABA accreditation as the dominant education credential for bar eligibility, or whether it should open the door to other accreditation paths.

The Story So Far

The Tennessee Supreme Court invited public comment on whether it should modify, reduce, or eliminate its reliance on ABA accreditation when setting minimum education requirements for applicants seeking to sit for the Tennessee bar exam, according to the FTC.

FTC staff filed a comment letter joined by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee and officials at the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. The FTC said the Commission vote authorizing the staff letter was 2-0.

"Federal Trade Commission staff urged the Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday to open law school accreditation to competition by reducing its reliance on the American Bar Association (ABA) in determining which law schools provide sufficient education for their graduates to take the Tennessee bar examination." - Federal Trade Commission press release, May 1, 2026

The dispute sits inside a larger accreditation fight. A 2025 White House executive order said higher education accreditors act as gatekeepers for more than $100 billion in federal student loans and Pell Grants each year. The order also singled out the ABA Council as the sole federally recognized accreditor for Juris Doctor programs.

What's Happening Now

The FTC framed the Tennessee rule as an entry-barrier issue rather than a narrow law-school governance dispute. The agency said the staff letter drew on decades of enforcement, advocacy work, and legal scholarship involving accreditation and occupational licensing.

The mechanism is straightforward. If one professional association controls the default education path for entering a licensed profession, it can shape tuition, school design, seat supply, and the number of graduates eligible to compete for legal work.

The FTC said the letter warned about the competitive harms of granting professional or trade associations authority to restrict competition among their members or limit outsiders' entry into a profession. In the agency's telling, ABA reliance gives incumbent lawyers a gatekeeping role over would-be competitors.

"The letter explained that the ABA standards for law school accreditation impose an elitist model of legal education, driving up the cost of legal education and thereby limiting the supply of lawyers." - Federal Trade Commission press release, May 1, 2026

Florida and Texas recently moved away from express reliance on the ABA, according to the FTC release. The Florida Supreme Court's January opinion in case SC2025-2064 provides one primary-source example of state courts reconsidering how accreditation connects to bar eligibility.

The Conservative View

The Trump administration's position is that accreditor power should be narrowed when accreditation rules become ideological, expensive, or detached from student outcomes. The White House order said federal recognition should not support accreditors that require unlawful discrimination or condition access to federal aid on diversity, equity, and inclusion standards.

The order specifically named the ABA Council's role in law school accreditation and said the council had required law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion. The administration said the federal government should push accreditors toward value, outcomes, and legal compliance.

"The American Bar Association's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (Council), which is the sole federally recognized accreditor for Juris Doctor programs, has required law schools to 'demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion.'" - White House executive order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, April 2025

From that perspective, Tennessee's court has a chance to separate bar readiness from a single national accreditor. The competition argument is that more approved pathways could create lower-cost schools, more seats, and more graduates available to serve clients.

The Progressive View

A consumer-protection view starts from a different risk. Law licenses give attorneys power over client money, liberty interests, family disputes, housing matters, immigration cases, and small-business contracts. State courts therefore have reason to demand a clear quality screen before graduates sit for the bar.

The Tennessee court comment file includes opposition context warning that reduced reliance on ABA accreditation could create schools operating under lower standards. That argument does not require defending every ABA policy choice. It says bar eligibility should not expand faster than the court can verify academic quality, bar passage outcomes, clinical training, and ethical preparation.

Progressive legal-access advocates can also split on the issue. Lower tuition and more lawyers could help underserved communities, but weak schools with poor outcomes could load students with debt and still fail to expand the supply of competent attorneys.

Other Perspectives

A libertarian reading backs the FTC's competition frame. Occupational licensing rules often protect consumers in theory, but in practice they can protect incumbents by restricting entry. If Tennessee can measure bar readiness directly, then tying eligibility to one accreditor may be broader than needed.

An institutional legal view is more cautious. The ABA accreditation system creates a nationally recognized quality baseline that courts, employers, and students understand. Replacing that baseline with multiple routes could reduce predictability unless Tennessee defines clear standards for any alternative accreditor.

A state-court perspective focuses on authority. Bar admission belongs to the courts, not to federal agencies or national trade groups. Tennessee's justices can use federal antitrust comments as input while still designing a rule that reflects state judicial responsibility for the profession.

Economic Implications

The entry barrier at the center of the fight is the link between accreditation and labor supply. If ABA accreditation raises the fixed cost of operating a law school, schools may charge higher tuition, offer fewer seats, or avoid lower-cost education models. Those constraints can reduce the number of graduates who become eligible to take the bar.

The FTC's economic claim is that a smaller lawyer supply hurts consumers seeking affordable legal services. The channel is not abstract sentiment. Fewer licensed lawyers can mean higher hourly rates, fewer attorneys serving rural counties, and less access for small businesses, tenants, families, and defendants who need counsel but cannot pay large-firm prices.

The counter-risk is also economic. If Tennessee recognizes weaker schools, students could borrow for degrees that do not lead to bar passage or stable legal employment. That would shift costs from the accreditor system to students, clients, and courts. A durable reform would need lower entry barriers plus transparent outcomes: tuition, debt, bar passage, employment, and disciplinary records.

Photo by Tony Webster, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

By the Numbers

The White House executive order said higher education accreditors influence access to more than $100 billion in federal student loans and Pell Grants each year.

The FTC said the Commission vote authorizing the Tennessee staff letter was 2-0.

The Federal Reserve did not participate in this rulemaking, but the economic mechanism resembles other licensed-labor markets: when entry barriers rise, supply can tighten and prices can increase.

The FTC said Florida and Texas Supreme Courts recently eliminated express reliance on the ABA and encouraged potential new accreditors to enter the field.

What People Are Saying

"This reduction in the supply of legal services serves the anticompetitive interests of the lawyers who dominate the ABA membership, while undermining the interests of consumers seeking affordable legal services." - Federal Trade Commission press release, May 1, 2026

"A group of higher education accreditors are the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year." - White House executive order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, April 2025

"The letter encouraged more states to take similar steps to reduce their reliance on ABA accreditation of law schools." - Federal Trade Commission press release, May 1, 2026

"The Commission vote authorizing the issuance of the staff letter was 2-0." - Federal Trade Commission press release, May 1, 2026

The Big Picture

Tennessee's decision will show how far state courts are willing to move from a national professional accreditor when federal competition officials argue that the accreditor acts as an entry barrier.

The court does not have to choose between no standards and one gatekeeper. The practical middle ground would be to define measurable state criteria for bar eligibility, then allow alternative accreditors or schools to qualify if they meet those standards.

For students and clients, the outcome will matter only if it changes costs and access. Lower tuition, more bar-ready graduates, and wider legal-service availability would support the FTC's theory. Poor bar results or weaker consumer protection would support the caution raised by accreditation defenders.