Civitas Institute Symposium: Texas and the Future of Legal Education

Five scholars discuss what role, if any, the ABA should play in the regulation of legal education.

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court requested comments on "whether to reduce or end the Rules' reliance on the ABA." Perhaps unsurprisingly, all of the Law Deans and nearly all law professors have fallen in line to support the ABA. I thought that the SCOTX would benefit from some alternate views. I helped to coordinate an excellent symposium from the Civitas Institute about the future of legal education in Texas. Here, five scholars discuss what role, if any, the ABA should play in the regulation of legal education.

• Josh Blackman "The Supreme Court of Texas Must Put Texas First, and Liberate Law Students from the ABA‍
• Seth J. Chandler "Accrediting for Tomorrow: Law School Metrics and Interstate Compacts
• Andrew P. Morriss "Ending the ABA's Role in Accreditation Will Benefit Texas
• Derek T. Muller "New Paths for Legal Education Should Be Considered
• Ilya Shapiro "The ABA Deserves to Lose Its Accreditation Monopoly
• John Yoo "The Conserving Force of Lawyers in American Democracy"

My essay challenges the orthodoxy that what is good for elite Texas law schools is good for Texas. I am skeptical.

The Texas Supreme Court, and indeed most state courts, have been subject to regulatory capture. Law deans want to attract law students from across the country, even those who do not plan to stay in Texas. Two decades ago, Justice Clarence Thomas lamented that the University of Michigan Law School was little more than "a waystation for the rest of the country's lawyers, rather than a training ground for those who will remain in Michigan." Thomas, as usual, was right. He questioned UM's "decision to be an elite institution [that] does little to advance the welfare of the people of Michigan or any cognizable interest of the State of Michigan."

We can ask the same question about Texas. Why is it in the interest of the Texas Supreme Court to allow students to be educated here and practice elsewhere? President Trump is fond of saying that Americans should put America first. Why shouldn't Texans put Texas first? Certainly, the Texas legislature does not provide benefits to Texans who pledge to leave the state. Why should the Supreme Court of Texas, when acting as a legislative body, behave any differently?

Thankfully, SCOTX now has a chance to correct the course. In 1983, SCOTX delegated to the American Bar Association the authority to accredit law schools. For the past four decades, law students must graduate from an ABA-approved law school to sit for the Texas bar exam. But in April 2025, SCOTX solicited public comments on "whether to reduce or end the . . . reliance on the ABA." This request came on the heels of the Florida Supreme Court's similar request.

The problems with the American Bar Association's Section of Legal Education are well known. The ABA imposes an endless series of "standards" on law schools, without providing any evidence that these standards are actually effective. The organization imposes a one-size-fits-all all policy, without regard to how the missions of elite law schools differ from those of access law schools. And critically, the left-leaning ABA has dragooned all law schools to impose onerous DEI requirements — a step they have only temporarily suspended in response to action from the Trump Administration. Critically, the ABA does not consider the needs of the people of Texas.

Yet, as could be predicted, the Texas Law Deans have rallied in support of the American Bar Association. On May 12, a "conversation" on the ABA's role as accreditor was convened by all of the Texas law schools (including my own). There were eleven speakers, ten of whom wholeheartedly supported the ABA's role as accreditor. Only Professor Seth J. Chandler of the University of Houston offered some critical comments about the organization. However, such groupthink is emblematic of the broader lack of ideological diversity in the academy. Moreover, this monolithic thought is especially unhelpful when deciding whether to change the regulatory regime. (Indeed, this online symposium hosted by the Civitas Institute was occasioned by the glaring one-sided nature of the ABA defense rally.)

The Texas Supreme Court would be well served to consider the entire symposium.