Texas has become the first state in the U.S. to end American Bar Association (ABA) oversight of its law schools, ending more than four decades of reliance on the national accrediting body.
The Texas Supreme Court finalized the change on Tuesday, issuing an order that confirms its September tentative opinion: the ABA should “no longer have the final say” on which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. Previously, ABA accreditation was a prerequisite for practicing law in Texas.
“The Court intends to provide stability, certainty, and flexibility to currently approved law schools by guaranteeing ongoing approval to schools that satisfy simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” the order, signed by all nine justices, stated. “The criteria will not be more burdensome than those currently required by the ABA.”
Under the new system, Texas law school graduates no longer need to attend ABA-accredited schools. Instead, the Texas Supreme Court will have sole authority over law school approvals. The court also emphasized that it plans to preserve graduates’ ability to use Texas law degrees in other states, as well as out-of-state degrees in Texas, and may consider alternative multi-state accrediting entities in the future.
Since 1923, the ABA has accredited law schools nationwide, setting standards for faculty, curriculum, facilities, student support, diversity and inclusion, and bar passage rates. Texas had delegated that authority to the ABA in 1983, after previously deciding which law schools qualified for licensure itself.
The court first signaled its intent to cut ties with the ABA in April, inviting input from law school deans, the Texas Board of Law Examiners, the State Bar, and the public. After tentatively deciding in September, the court opened a public comment period that concluded in December.
While the all-Republican court did not provide a detailed rationale, the decision follows months of tension between the ABA and former President Donald Trump. Earlier in the year, Trump issued an executive order stripping the ABA of millions in U.S. government funding, prompting lawsuits from the ABA and allies. Attorney General Pam Bondi also criticized the ABA’s diversity requirements, claiming they conflicted with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling ending affirmative action in college admissions.
The ABA condemned the federal actions, highlighting the Trump administration’s targeting of legal organizations for their diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Meanwhile, two Federal Trade Commission officials recently backed Texas’s move, citing the ABA’s monopoly over law school approval, which they said stifled competition and imposed costly restrictions.
Many Texas law school deans opposed ending ABA accreditation, citing concerns about reduced mobility and increased costs for graduates. However, the dean of the University of Texas School of Law encouraged the court to explore alternatives rather than rely solely on ABA accreditation.
This is not the first time the ABA’s accreditation authority has faced scrutiny. In 1995, the Department of Justice reached a settlement with the ABA after an antitrust suit alleged the association used its power to protect faculty economic interests. Other states, including Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee, are now also considering limiting or ending ABA oversight.