ABA Council Votes to Repeal Law School DEI Accreditation Standard
The American Bar Association’s council has voted to repeal Standard 206, its law school diversity, equity, and inclusion rule.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 8:17 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 8:17 a.m. ETFirst report
ABA Council Votes to Repeal Law School DEI Accreditation Standard
The American Bar Association's (ABA) council voted to repeal Standard 206, its law school diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) rule, according to a report by JD Journal.
The repeal is a final rule change, as reported by JD Journal. The ABA's action removes the accreditation requirement related to DEI for law schools.
The development is ongoing, and further details have not been established.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Law School DEI Rule Scrapped by ABA Ahead of Votejdjournal.com
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 12:23current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 12:17current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.