Texas has become the first state in the nation to formally sever its reliance on the American Bar Association (ABA) for determining which law school graduates are eligible to sit for the bar exam, a move that places the state at the center of a broader political and legal debate over higher education oversight.
In a recent order, the Texas Supreme Court announced it will no longer require graduation from an ABA-accredited law school for admission to the Texas bar. Instead, the court will establish and maintain its own list of approved law schools—ending a 42-year arrangement under which the ABA effectively served as the gatekeeper for legal licensure in the state.
The court’s order did not directly explain why it was abandoning ABA accreditation, which Texas had relied on since 1983. However, the justices said the new framework is intended to provide “stability, certainty and flexibility” for law schools by relying on “a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” according to the order. A spokesperson for the court declined to elaborate further.
The decision arrives amid sustained pressure on the ABA from President Donald Trump and his administration, particularly over the organization’s diversity and inclusion standards. In April, Trump publicly labeled the ABA’s diversity requirement for law schools “unlawful” and directed the U.S. Department of Education to consider whether the ABA should retain its status as the federal government’s official law school accreditor. That diversity standard has been suspended since February.
The ABA responded cautiously to Texas’ move. Jenn Rosato Perea, the organization’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said in a statement that the order “reinforces the authority that the Supreme Court of Texas has always had over the licensure of J.D. graduates.” She added that the ABA will “continue to prove our value as an accreditor” and work with states and institutions to preserve lawyers’ ability to practice across state lines.
While the Texas Supreme Court now holds sole authority over law school approval within the state, the order emphasizes continuity. All currently ABA-accredited law schools remain approved, and the court said it intends to preserve reciprocity—allowing Texas graduates to practice elsewhere and graduates from other states to practice in Texas. The justices also left open the possibility of relying on another multi-state accrediting body in the future.
Still, the long-term implications are uncertain. The court outlined interim criteria for approving schools that lose ABA accreditation, including meeting minimum bar passage standards, but said it has not yet developed a process for evaluating non-ABA-accredited schools seeking approval.
Supporters argue the change could lower costs and expand access to the legal profession. Texas A&M University law dean Robert Ahdieh said approving non-ABA-accredited schools “has the potential to reduce the cost of legal education and increase access to lawyers,” while cautioning that outcomes remain unclear. “We’ll have to see how things actually play out,” he said.
Opposition has been strongest among law school leaders. Deans from eight of Texas’ 10 ABA-accredited law schools warned during the public comment period that abandoning national accreditation could undermine degree portability and increase compliance costs. Similar concerns have been raised in Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee, where state supreme courts are reviewing their own reliance on ABA standards.
For critics of political interference in higher education, Texas’ decision underscores how professional accreditation—once largely technocratic—has become entangled in broader ideological battles. Whether the move leads to meaningful innovation in legal education or fractures national standards remains an open question, but Texas has unmistakably redrawn the lines of authority.
