A “statement of interest” is a brief the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) files in someone else’s lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 517. It lets the federal government explain its view of the law or policy issues at stake without becoming a party or taking a position on disputed facts. The judge is not bound by it, but courts often give it significant weight because it states the official legal position of the United States and can influence how the court interprets antitrust or other laws.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is the main national professional association for veterinarians in the United States. It represents more than 100,000 veterinarians and works on advocacy, professional standards, and continuing education. Through its Council on Education (AVMA COE), the AVMA accredits veterinary medical degree programs (DVM/VMD). The COE is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as the official accrediting agency for veterinary colleges in the U.S. Accreditation is meant to assure that programs meet minimum quality and consistency standards. Most state licensing boards and federal student‑aid rules require graduation from an accredited veterinary school, which is why AVMA’s accreditation function is so important.
Building and running an on‑site teaching hospital and a research‑intensive program is extremely expensive: it requires large facilities, costly equipment, and many specialized faculty and staff. The veterinary school suing AVMA alleges that AVMA has reinterpreted its research standard to effectively require this high‑cost model, including an on‑site teaching hospital, as a condition of accreditation. Schools that rely mostly on tuition or that want to use lower‑cost clinical models may not be able to afford these capital and operating costs, so they cannot enter or stay in the market. That can (1) block the creation of new veterinary colleges, (2) threaten the accreditation of existing schools that don’t fit the model, and (3) increase the cost of veterinary education, which in turn can contribute to higher prices for veterinary services. DOJ’s filing highlights that the U.S. has had only about 34 AVMA‑accredited veterinary colleges for decades, which it views as evidence of constrained supply.
When DOJ reviews accreditation practices, it applies the same federal antitrust laws that govern other private standard‑setting and professional‑association conduct, mainly:
• Sherman Act § 1 – prohibits agreements or concerted actions that unreasonably restrain trade, such as collective rules that unnecessarily exclude competitors or restrict output. • Sherman Act § 2 – prohibits monopolization and abuse of monopoly power, which can be implicated if a dominant accreditor uses its control over accreditation to maintain or extend its monopoly by excluding rivals without legitimate justification.
DOJ’s statement of interest in Lincoln Memorial University (LMU) v. AVMA explains that professional accreditation bodies are analyzed under these standards and are not exempt simply because they set quality standards. Courts generally use a “rule of reason” analysis for such standards: they weigh any pro‑competitive benefits (like genuine quality assurance) against harms such as reduced entry, higher prices, or suppressed innovation. The Supreme Court has held that private standard‑setting organizations are subject to antitrust scrutiny—for example, in Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., which involved a private body that set building‑code standards.
The plaintiff is Lincoln Memorial University (LMU), a nonprofit university based in Harrogate, Tennessee, which operates the Richard A. Gillespie College of Veterinary Medicine. LMU alleges that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), through its Council on Education, is using its control over accreditation to restrict the number of veterinary schools and graduates, violating U.S. antitrust laws.
According to LMU’s own statements and coverage of the complaint, the university is not seeking money damages. Instead it seeks injunctive and structural relief, including: • A court order stopping AVMA from enforcing what LMU describes as arbitrary and anticompetitive accreditation requirements (especially expensive research and facility mandates) that are not necessary to produce competent veterinarians. • Long‑term restructuring of the accreditation system—for example, LMU asks the court to require a “complete and total separation” of the AVMA Council on Education from the AVMA trade association so that accreditation is no longer controlled by economically interested competitors.
AVMA’s Council on Education is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and relied on by states for veterinary licensure, but AVMA is still a private trade association made up largely of practicing veterinarians. DOJ’s statement of interest explains that such recognition does not automatically make AVMA a government entity or give it “state‑action” immunity from the Sherman Act. Under Supreme Court and FTC precedents on state‑action immunity, private or professional bodies are immune only when a state clearly authorizes the anticompetitive policy and actively supervises it. Simply having states or federal programs rely on a private accreditor’s decisions is not enough.
For that reason, DOJ tells the court that AVMA’s accreditation standards and procedures must be evaluated under normal antitrust rules, just like other private professional or standard‑setting organizations, even though AVMA is recognized as an accreditor and its decisions are embedded in state licensing systems.