The American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar adopted a document setting out “Core Principles and Values of Law School Accreditation” at its Friday meeting, a move aimed at reinforcing transparency and legitimacy as its authority faces unprecedented challenges.

Steve Bahls, chair of the committee on the purposes of accreditation, said the document was drafted after reviewing U.S. Department of Education regulations, legal scholarship, and approaches taken by other professional accreditors. Council member José Roberto (Beto) Juárez Jr. added that the principles were intended to show responsiveness to a wide range of stakeholders.

The adoption comes as states and the Trump administration question the ABA’s role as the country’s primary accreditor of law schools. In April, the White House ordered a review of the ABA’s authority, citing alleged “race-based preferences” and “ideological overreach” in its standards. Earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi accused the organization of “unlawful discrimination” in diversity-related requirements. The ABA responded in May by extending its suspension of enforcement of Standard 206—the diversity mandate—until 2026.

At the state level, Ohio’s Supreme Court recently formed an advisory committee to study law school accreditation. Soon after, lawyers including Nicholas Barry of America First Legal Foundation and Benjamin Flowers of Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers wrote to the committee urging Ohio to sever reliance on ABA approval, calling the association “not a credible organization.” Florida and Texas have also initiated their own reviews.

The council’s new principles emphasize four goals: ensuring rigorous legal education that prepares students for ethical practice; protecting students from economic exploitation; helping to ensure client and public protection through lawyer competence; and reflecting evolving forms of legal practice while supporting the rule of law. Amendments introduced during the meeting refined language to acknowledge shared responsibility for lawyer competence and separated innovation from rule-of-law promotion as distinct objectives.

The document also delineates what accreditation is not intended to do—such as limiting the number of law schools, protecting lawyer incomes, or mandating uniformity across programs. It sets out 12 guiding substantive values, including transparency for prospective students, encouragement of innovation, respect for varied institutional missions, and advancement of pro bono work. Procedural commitments include evidence-based reasoning in standard-setting, stakeholder input, consistency in application, and periodic review to adapt to changes in the profession.