Imagine studying for hours every day for months—even years—to take the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), just to get an email three days before your test informing you that you were barred from the test and resources because you were part Iranian. This image was the reality for thousands of students on September 8, 2026. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), under a sweeping interpretation of a new wave of sanctions against Iran, barred many Iranian students, dual citizens, and nationals from taking the LSAT.
By unfairly locking students out of the LSAT, the council—the gatekeepers of America’s legal system—has demonstrated institutional cowardice by allowing executive overreach that contradicts its mission statement.
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced “Operation Economic Outcast” under Secretary Scott Bessent. Part of these sanctions was the suspension of General License G, which previously allowed U.S. academic organizations to provide testing and educational services to Iran without each organization individually getting government approval. According to the U.S. government’s license, the restrictions explicitly applied only to “individuals who are located in Iran or located outside Iran but who are ordinarily resident in Iran.”
Instead of checking residency, LSAC overstepped by running a sweeping blanket filter on heritage. The council triggered a mass overnight lockout for any test-taker who listed Iran under citizenship or place of birth on their profile, including Canadian-Iranians, Iranian-Americans, and permanent residents living in the West for decades. Affected students received an email stating “LSAC is prohibited from providing any products or services to Iranian citizens or residents.” More problematic still, Iranian citizenship is notoriously difficult to renounce, and LSAC requires that participants list any dual citizenship or nationality. Thus, thousands of students with no links to Iran or its regime got locked out simply because of their heritage.
This overcompliance and discrimination against Iranians directly contradicts LSAC’s mission statement: “to advance law... by promoting access, equity, and fairness in law school admission, to broaden the pathway into legal education, and to support law” (LSAC). They enforced what was never asked and thus volunteered to drive out innocent law students. This action moved toward reducing diversity in the legal field. By preventing smart, capable future lawyers from practicing law, their new prohibition reduces the fairness and representation in our legal system. Without Iranian lawyers, our judicial system will lack their wisdom and unique perspective. Banning thousands of Iranians simply from fear of the Trump administration does not “broaden the pathway into legal education” or provoke “fairness in law school admission,” as LSAC claims they do.
LSAC’s lack of independence regarding the executive order was unacceptable. Under organizations like the National Iranian American Council’s assessment, LSAC had the immediate legal option to petition the Treasury for a “specific license” so that they could potentially challenge the scope of the sanctions to protect its applicants. Real legal institutions—especially ones with LSAC’s influence—defend the integrity of the law; they do not fold at the first sight of a threat. Our legal system was designed to check executive overreach, and LSAC did not use that capability. By refusing to contest the suspension of the license, or even to request a specific exemption for students, LSAC conceded that the executive branch may decide who becomes a lawyer—instead of the law school council itself. Worse, LSAC bowed so low to executive power that it trampled on rights the administration had not even targeted yet.
Finally, LSAC’s lockout of students undermined the basic legal principles that it should uphold. LSAC automatically banned students who had any “affiliation” with Iran. LSAC assumed these students were “guilty” without a second thought, an assumption that contradicted the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” The lockout forced hard-working law students to scramble 72 hours before their exam, emailing and calling an unresponsive organization to prove they were not linked to the Iranian government. In a complete reversal of due process, LSAC treated aspiring lawyers as national security threats until proven otherwise. The very institution tasked with testing future lawyers on constitutional principles violated the spirit of due process out of corporate panic and thereby loses the moral authority to claim it protects the rule of law.
The legal community cannot permit administrative overreach to dictate who may enter the profession. Aspiring lawyers deserve an admission system that evaluates them on their merits, not their heritage. To protect the integrity of the field, legal institutions must hold LSAC accountable and demand restoration of access for all qualified applicants.