Listen to this story.

AVMA headquarters

VIN News Service photo

The American Veterinary Medical Association, a trade group for the profession located in Schaumburg, Illinois, would need to adjust how its Council on Education accredits veterinary education under reforms pushed by the federal government.

A lawsuit alleging anticompetitive practices by the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education was dismissed in a federal court last week, ending, at least for the moment, a high-profile challenge to the organization's role as the only accreditor of veterinary education in the United States and Canada.

But a second, broader and potentially more potent challenge to how the 80-year-old AVMA COE operates lies ahead: a Trump administration plan to reshape federal oversight of higher education.

Although the lawsuit and the proposed federal education accreditation overhaul are separate actions, they overlap thematically in parts.

The suit was brought by Lincoln Memorial University, which has veterinary schools in Tennessee and Florida. Among other things, LMU had called for breaking up the AVMA COE, alleging that the AVMA's dual role as a trade group that aims to protect the economic well-being of its members conflicts with its mission as an accreditor, a role that enables it to withhold from, restrict or terminate the accreditation of new and existing veterinary schools.

In his ruling dismissing the suit on Sept. 1, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas A. Varlan did not weigh in on the merits of the complaint but said that harms claimed by LMU were too speculative for the case to move ahead.

Meanwhile, on Aug. 20, the U.S. Department of Education, which approves the entities that accredit institutions at which federal student aid funds may be used, published a sweeping proposal to revamp the accreditation system. It would revise how the federal government recognizes new and existing accreditors, how accrediting bodies are organized and run, and what's in their accreditation standards.

Perhaps most critical for the AVMA COE is a proposal that programmatic accreditors — those that, like the COE, accredit programs at an institution but not the institution as a whole — be "fully separate and independent" from related professional, trade or membership associations.

In a press release in May, the Education Department described the aim of this provision as "ending collusion between program accreditors and related trade associations."

The public is invited to comment on the proposal until midnight Eastern on Sept. 21.

The rule changes stem from an executive order issued in April by President Donald J. Trump. In the order, he claimed that accreditors routinely approve "low-quality" institutions that offer a "negative return on investment" that "may leave students financially worse off and in enormous debt by charging them exorbitant sums for a degree with very modest earnings potential."

Trump called for a set of changes, including recognizing new accrediting agencies to expand competition, reducing accreditation cost burdens and requiring accreditors to require institutions to prioritize "intellectual diversity" among faculty.

Independent, or conflicted?

The COE was established by the AVMA in 1946 and recognized by the Education Department in 1952. An AVMA news story in August states that "For more than a decade, the council has functioned independently from the AVMA in both its organization and decision-making." The article does not specify what changes were made to enable the council to function independently.

In its response to the LMU lawsuit, the AVMA stated that the COE's "accreditation decisions are independent and not subject to interference from any organization or individual." It added that of the 20 members of the COE, three are from the public and the remaining 17 are chosen by bodies separate and apart from the AVMA board or chief executive officer.

However, in the recent AVMA news story, the organization appeared to acknowledge that the new federal proposal could force changes.

"Both the AVMA and American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC) provide staff support for the council," wrote Malinda Larkin, a senior news editor at the AVMA. "The proposed rule, though, would mean the AVMA and AAVMC would have to more fully separate their involvement with the AVMA COE."

The regulatory proposal would specifically disallow "shared resources" and require accreditors to have clear and effective controls to prevent conflicts of interest.

Among the many other changes proposed in the more-than-70,000-word document are measures to increase competition among accrediting agencies by "reducing unnecessary barriers to competition" and making it "less burdensome" for institutions to change accreditors or to use more than one. If the provisions are adopted, the AVMA COE could face competition for the first time in its history.

The rule, as proposed, also would specify "that an accrediting agency's recognition by the department does not provide immunity from antitrust laws."

This provision harkens back to the LMU lawsuit. In a court filing, the AVMA had argued that LMU's antitrust claims don't apply to the accreditor for several reasons, including that COE standards have been "reviewed" by the Education Department.

The U.S. Department of Justice begged to differ. In a nonbinding "statement of interest" it filed in the case last December, the DOJ stated that being approved as an accreditor did not insulate the organization from antitrust scrutiny. Now the proposed Education Department rule would codify that interpretation.

Although dismissed, the lawsuit may be revived. It was dismissed without prejudice, meaning LMU may bring the same claim in the future.

For now, both parties in the case express satisfaction with the court's decision.

"The AVMA is pleased that the Court recognized that the AVMA Council on Education has procedures in place that allow Lincoln Memorial University, and any other veterinary schools seeking accreditation, to fully and fairly present its position on why it should be accredited," a statement provided by Lisa Howard, director of public relations, reads in part. "Following the dismissal of LMU's case against the AVMA, LMU will continue to have the opportunity to demonstrate that it meets the COE's standards."

LMU focused on what the ruling did not say.

"LMU is pleased that the Court has not ruled on the merits of its antitrust claims against the AVMA, which were supported by the Department of Justice after consultation with the Department of Education," a statement provided by Rachel Worley, director of communications, reads in part. "LMU remains poised to vindicate its claims in the future as necessary."