Supreme Court of Texas Likely to Remove ABA as "Final Say" on Accreditation

"The Court is of the tentative opinion that the ABA should no longer have the final say on whether a law school’s graduates are eligible to sit for the Texas bar exam and become licensed to practice law in Texas."

On September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a momentous order. The Justices likely signaled that the ABA will no longer have the "final say" on accreditation.

After further consideration of the matter, including review of the many helpful comments received, the Court is of the tentative opinion that the ABA should no longer have the final say on whether a law school's graduates are eligible to sit for the Texas bar exam and become licensed to practice law in Texas.

In April, the Supreme Court of Texas requested comments on whether to "reduce or end" the reliance on the American Bar Association's Section on Legal Education. I organized a symposium with the Civitas Institute, offering some contrary viewpoints. I also submitted a comment to the Court. The vast majority of the Deans of Texas Law Schools opposed the change, offering what I thought was a fairly weak defense of the ABA. Kudos to UT Dean Bobby Chesney for not joining the crowd, and offering a nuanced take on the ABA. Apparently, the Supreme Court of Texas did not find all of the other deans persuasive. [Update: Dean Bobby Ahdieh at Texas A&M did not join the letter with the other Texas deans, but also did not submit a public letter of his own to SCOTX.

The Court how now proposed a single change to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas: the Supreme Court of Texas, and not the American Bar Association would accredit law schools.

The Court has requested comments by December 1, 2025, and announced the amendment will likely take effect on January 1, 2026.

The Court invites public comments on the proposed amendments. Comments should be submitted in writing to [e-mail] by December 1, 2025.

The Court will issue an order finalizing the amendments after the close of the comment period. The Court expects the amendments to take effect on January 1, 2026.

I think the phrasing here is significant. Consider how the prior order specifically listed the law school deans before the public:

The Court invites comments on this topic from the Texas Board of Law Examiners, the Texas law school deans, the bar, and the public.

In my comment, I criticized this phrasing:

With respect, I think this order lists the relevant constituencies backwards. The Supreme Court's authority to regulate the legal profession is premised on serving the public interest. And the interests of law school deans, in particular, are not always consonant with the public interest.

It is the public that should weigh in on how this change affects the public.

The Court offered several points to guide the comment process.

First, the primary objection of the law deans was that removing the ABA's role would affect portability. In other words, graduates of Texas law schools would not be able to sit for bar exams in other states. I think the Deans care less about graduates of foreign law schools sitting for the Texas bar. This concern would be raised more by law firms.

Commenters and other interested parties are advised that the Court, in reasserting its authority over the approval of law schools:

a. intends to preserve the portability of Texas law-school degrees into other states and to preserve the portability of out-of-state law-school degrees into Texas;

It is not clear how portability will be preserved, but SCOTX is moving forward.

Second, another objection was that even if the ABA is removed as the sole accreditor, law schools will still opt to voluntarily maintain ABA accreditation. This two-tier accreditation could lead to duplicative and burdensome work. Texas explains there will not be "additional" burdens.

b. does not intend to impose additional accreditation, compliance, or administrative burdens on currently approved law schools, which need not take any additional action in order to remain approved law schools in Texas;

Third, for schools that are already ABA accredited, Texas will offer "ideologically neutral criteria" to maintain accreditation. Say farewell to DEI mandates to teach "cross-cultural competency" and similar topics. More pressingly, accreditation will be premised on neutral output measures, such as bar passage and employment statistics. Seth Chandler offered a metrics-based approach in his Civitas essay.

c. intends to provide stability, certainty, and flexibility to currently approved law schools by guaranteeing ongoing approval to schools that satisfy a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria (such as bar exam passage rate) using metrics no more onerous than those currently required by the ABA;

Fourth, Texas law schools that opt out of ABA accreditation could maintain Texas accreditation. There may be Texas law schools that decide to go down this path. Cutting the ABA's expensive mandates could help improve actual student outcomes.

d. will not consider the fact that a law school loses ABA accreditation to be sufficient grounds for removal of the school from Texas's list of approved schools;

Fifth, schools in other states that are not ABA accredited will be able to opt in to the Texas list.

e. intends to develop, in consultation with the Texas Board of Law Examiners, a deliberative approach to requests from law schools not currently accredited by the ABA that wish to be added to Texas's list;

Sixth, the Court lists all of the law schools currently accredited by the ABA, and says they are now "approved by the Court as satisfying the law study requirements for admission to the Texas Bar." No further work needs to be taken. Graduates of those schools can be admitted to the Texas bar.

f. does not anticipate immediate changes to the current list of approved law schools; and

Seventh, there are currently efforts by Florida, Texas, and other states to create alternative multi-state accrediting agencies. I think the Trump Department of Education will gladly certify these bodies, thus further weakening the ABA's authority.

g. may consider, in the future, returning to greater reliance on a multistate accrediting entity other than the ABA should a suitable entity become available.

It is difficult to explain how significant this order is. In the span of a few pages, the Texas Supreme Court demonstrated what many of us realized years ago: states do not need the ABA as an accreditor. The ABA only has itself to blame. Rather than realizing what time it was, and focusing on its core function, the organization continued its mission creep, and squandered its credibility.

I suspect Florida, Ohio, and other states to follow suit.

I have helped to organize a panel at the Federalist Society National Convention on the future of the ABA. It could not be more timely. And I intend to submit a comment to SCOTX by December.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

"First, the primary objection of the law deans was that removing the ABA's role would affect portability. In other words, graduates of Texas law schools would not be able to sit for bar exams in other states."

How is this not subject to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause?

[Longtobefree]

"How is this not subject to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause?"

Surely you jest!
Take your Texas concealed pistol permit to California and you will see how much Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause means.

[gormadoc]

Why would it be? Licensing is mostly state-by-state.

[Bored Lawyer]

The bar of each state has its own licensing. I don't know of any requirement that one state recognize the bar admission of another. Same for many other licenses, such as doctors, electricians, plumbers, etc.

Many state bars have reciprocity if you have been practicing a certain number of years. Meaning, if you practiced in one state for, say, five years, you just have to fill out some paperwork to be admitted in the other. But not all. AFAIK, California has no reciprocity. If you move there, you have to retake the bar exam.

[Brett Bellmore]

Got no problem with the exam; Each state has its own laws, why wouldn't you have to pass an exam in a state to practice law there?

But we're not discussing whether the states will recognize passing the bar exam in another state. We're discussing whether they will recognize a law degree awarded in another state, for purposes of letting you TAKE the bar exam.

Their recognizing degrees awarded by another state's accredited law schools in no way gets in the way of them making sure you know California law if you want to practice law in California. That's the bar exam's job, isn't it?

[Mark N.]

That's an interesting question, on which I don't think there is much precedent. I did find a law-review article from 2020 arguing that giving "diploma privilege" only to in-state law schools violates the dormant commerce clause, but I don't think this has been litigated: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1314/

Alaska did lose a case (Zobel v. Williams, 1982) that tried to condition payments from the permanent oil fund on length of residence in the state. If you read that case broadly enough, it could stand for a principle along the lines of: people who moved to a state later in life can't be disadvantaged compared to people who were born there or moved earlier. But I'm not sure if the courts would expand it that way.

[ducksalad]

Don't know the situation now, but it used to be some states let people take the bar exam without any law degree at all. Let's compare five cases:

State A says no degree needed.
State B says any old degree is good enough.
State C says it has to be a three-year law degree.
State D says it has to be a three-year accredited law degree.
State E says it has to be a three-year ABA accredited law degree.

You seem to be saying State C is not violating the full-faith and credit clause, but State E is. Does something in the text or original public meaning help you draw that line, or are you saying it's some kind rational basis test and you believe the ABA requirement isn't rational?

[gormadoc]

The part the state plays here is deciding who gets to take the bar exam, which is based on accreditation and not on which state the school is located. TX schools can still be accredited and their graduates allowed, while other-state schools might not be and their graduates disallowed

[David Nieporent]

How is a law degree awarded in another state a public act, record, or judicial proceeding of another state?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because government decides whether it counts for anything?

[loki13]

*whoosh*

You have two schools in Texas. Unaccredited Texas U (UTU) and accredited Texas U (ATU).

You have two schools in Denial (the state that Brett is in). Unaccredited Denial U (UDU) and accredited Denial U (ADU).

Here are the rules for TAKE THE EXAM and therefore be licensed in each state (assuming passage)-
Texas- Graduate from law school (either accredited or unaccredited), pass the bar.
Denial- Graduate from accredited law school, pass the bar.

At this time, graduates from all schools (ATU, UTU, ADU, UDU) can sit and pass the Texas Bar. But only graduate from ATU and ADU can sit and pass the Denial Bar.

Except ... there isn't any UDU. Because of course there isn't- why would you have an unaccredited law school in a state where you can't take the bar?

States cam set their own rules to take the bar, because state regulation of the bar is a state-level function. State laws are very different (sometime drastically so- the differences between the legal regimes in Louisiana, California, and Virginia are ... a lot).

ABA accreditation is something that provides a floor that ensures graduates aren't restricted to the state that they graduated in when they graduate- it's why there are states that don't have accreditation requirements*, but ... it's generally considered a hallmark of operations that exist to take in money and not really worry too much about the welfare of the people that graduate.

*IIRC, there are a small handful of states that still have an apprenticeship that will substitute for law school. There are a handful that allow state-accredited schools to have their graduates sit for the bar. I think there's a state or two that allows non-ABA accredited school graduates to sit for its bar by waiver. I don't think that this is the end of the world, it's just kind of stupid. It's overly complex and doesn't really do much and it's kind of stupid. No one in the history of ever has been, "You know what, the problem we have right now is that there are too few attorneys. So we need to massively lower the standards. Also? We need to make it harder for these people to take on lots of debt, not be good at what they do, and not be able to practice law."

[loki13]

*Edit- EASIER, not harder.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Does it matter if it's a private school, or a state run school?

[loki13]

No.

[thesafesurfer]

Only 14% of American lawyers belong to the ABA. What is the reasoning behind its distinctly minority control over the profession?

[y81]

I guess this will further Josh's goal of preventing those damn furriners (many of whom are Yankees!) from coming to Texas and either paying tuition to Texas law schools or hiring graduates of Texas law schools. OK by me!

[Katall]

Maybe he has a point. The ABA accredited the South Texas College of Law. No-one can figure out why.

[ah....Clem]

Shorter Texas Supreme Court:

You mean we can just grab power and authority from somebody else and grant it to ourselves by fiat?

Hell, yes! Hold my beer and watch this.

[MN2828]

The Texas Supreme Court has always had the power and authority to determine who can practice law in Texas. The Court is grabbing nothing.

All of this strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. All major Texas schools (and most particularly the state ones) will continue to be ABA accredited because they will not be competitive with those who are. People who grow up in Texas and go to school in Texas do actually move to other states to practice law. Why lock yourself out of 48 other states and limit yourself to California and Texas because your school lacks the required accreditation.

In any event, the Court is pretty strongly signaling that whatever rules it comes up with will incorporate an either/or regime, i.e., we will accept either our accreditation or ABA accreditation.