Texas has officially become the first state in the United States to eliminate the oversight of the American Bar Association (ABA) for its law schools. This significant change comes after the Texas Supreme Court issued an order on September 1, 2023, concluding a 42-year reliance on the national organization. The ruling asserts that the ABA will “no longer have the final say” regarding which law school graduates can sit for the bar exam, a crucial step toward becoming a licensed lawyer in Texas.
The court’s order aims to provide “stability, certainty, and flexibility” to law schools that meet a new set of criteria. These criteria will be simple, objective, and ideologically neutral, ensuring that the approval process remains consistent with the standards that the ABA previously enforced. The new structure allows graduates from non-ABA accredited law schools to practice law in Texas, which marks a substantial shift in the state’s legal education landscape.
Texas Supreme Court justices emphasized that although they are severing ties with the ABA, they intend to maintain graduates’ ability to use their law degrees across state lines. The court highlighted that it does not foresee immediate changes to the list of approved law schools and may consider alternative accrediting bodies in the future.
Established in 1923, the ABA has been responsible for accrediting law schools nationwide, requiring compliance with standards related to faculty qualifications, curriculum design, student support resources, and diversity commitments. While many law schools are ABA-approved, not all hold this accreditation. For decades, the Texas Supreme Court had the authority to determine law school compliance with licensure requirements until it delegated this responsibility to the ABA in 1983.
The court’s recent decision follows a period of tension between the ABA and the broader legal community, particularly amid actions taken by the previous administration under President Donald Trump. Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order that removed millions in funding from the ABA, prompting the organization to file a lawsuit alleging violations of administrative law.
Further complicating the situation, Texas Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to the ABA asserting that its diversity requirements conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2023 that ended affirmative action in college admissions. This letter hinted at the potential withdrawal of the ABA’s accreditation authority.
Responses to the Texas Supreme Court’s decision have been mixed. Deans from eight of Texas’s ten ABA-accredited law schools expressed opposition to abandoning the accreditation framework, arguing it could hinder lawyer mobility and increase operational costs. Notably, the dean of the University of Texas School of Law chose not to sign the dissenting letter and instead encouraged the court to explore viable alternatives to the current ABA model.
In a recent statement, officials from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) supported the Texas Supreme Court’s decision. They criticized the ABA’s monopoly on law school approvals, stating it has stifled competition and imposed costly and restrictive requirements on schools. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, appointed by President Biden, previously restricted political appointees from associating with the ABA, further indicating a shift in regulatory attitudes toward the organization.
The scrutiny of ABA accreditation is not new. In 1995, the Department of Justice settled with the ABA following a lawsuit that accused the organization of using its power to protect faculty interests at the expense of competition and affordability. With Texas now leading a movement away from ABA oversight, states like Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee are also considering similar changes.
As Texas navigates this unprecedented transition, the implications for legal education and the future of law practice in the state remain to be seen. The court’s decision not only reshapes the landscape of legal education in Texas but also sets a precedent that could influence other states in their approaches to law school accreditation.
