Federal judge dismisses antitrust suit against AVMA

Lincoln Memorial University’s antitrust challenge to the American Veterinary Medical Association has been knocked out of court for now, but not on the underlying competition question. In a September 1, 2026 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Thomas A. Varlan dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that LMU’s claimed harm from AVMA accreditation actions was too speculative to support federal jurisdiction at this stage. (law.justia.com)

The lawsuit, filed in 2025, accused the AVMA and its Council on Education of using accreditation standards to limit competition in veterinary education and, by extension, veterinary services. LMU argued that probationary accreditation for its Tennessee college and barriers facing its planned Florida college harmed the university financially and reputationally. The case drew unusual attention after the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in December 2025, saying accreditation systems like the AVMA’s are not insulated from antitrust review simply because states rely on accredited degrees for licensure or because the accreditor is recognized by the Department of Education. (justice.gov)

Judge Varlan did not decide whether LMU’s antitrust theory was right or wrong. Instead, he focused on ripeness. The opinion says LMU’s claimed future injury in Tennessee depended on a chain of events that had not yet happened, including the possibility that the school could correct deficiencies during the probationary period, obtain an extension, or prevail through the AVMA COE’s appeal process. The court also pointed to developments in Florida as evidence that LMU’s feared harms were contingent: after the complaint was filed, LMU’s Orange Park program received a Letter of Reasonable Assurance in August 2025 and is now listed as provisionally accredited. (law.justia.com)

That distinction matters. A dismissal without prejudice means LMU is not barred from returning to court later if it can show a concrete injury tied to a final accreditation outcome. Bloomberg Law, in its coverage of the ruling, similarly noted that the court concluded the threatened harm was too speculative, leaving the AVMA free from the current antitrust claims without resolving the broader legality of its accreditation model. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

The broader regulatory backdrop is still important for the profession. The AVMA Council on Education remains the Department of Education-recognized accreditor for DVM and VMD programs in the United States, including provisional accreditation. That recognition gives the COE a central gatekeeping role in veterinary education, and the court opinion itself notes that probationary accreditation can be corrected within a two-year period, with possible extensions and an appeal heard by a seven-person panel that excludes current COE members and AVMA staff. (ed.gov)

Why it matters: For veterinarians, practice leaders, and academic administrators, this ruling preserves the status quo, but it doesn’t remove legal pressure from veterinary accreditation. The DOJ’s intervention signaled that federal antitrust enforcers see veterinary education as a competition issue with downstream effects on workforce supply, access to care, and cost for pet parents and livestock producers. Even though LMU lost on timing, not substance, the case has already pushed veterinary accreditation into a wider policy conversation about whether quality assurance standards can also function as barriers to market entry. (justice.gov)

There’s also a practical takeaway for veterinary colleges. The court’s reasoning suggests that future litigation may hinge less on generalized claims about restrictive standards and more on whether a school can point to a final, concrete adverse accreditation action and measurable market harm. That could shape how institutions document accreditation disputes, remediation efforts, and the business impact of probation or denial decisions. (law.justia.com)

What to watch: The next inflection points are whether LMU amends and refiles, seeks appellate review, or waits for a more definitive accreditation outcome involving its Tennessee program. Just as important, the DOJ’s 2025 statement remains on the books, so even with this case dismissed, scrutiny of how veterinary accreditation affects competition is unlikely to disappear. (justice.gov)