For decades, the American Bar Association (ABA) has held a near-monopoly over law school accreditation in the United States. This power has shaped not only legal education but also who could practice law in states across the country. But in a move that could reshape the future of legal education, the Supreme Court of Texas is now poised to reclaim its authority, signaling a major shift away from ABA dominance.
How Things Used to Be
Not that long ago, the ABA wasn’t involved. Originally, the Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) itself determined which law schools met the standards required for graduates to sit for the bar exam.
This changed in 1983, when the Court delegated that authority to the ABA. From then on, with limited exceptions, Texas required prospective lawyers to graduate from an ABA-approved law school. This system mirrored most other states’ and was thought to ensure a baseline of educational quality and portability for law degrees.
For many years, this arrangement seemed efficient. The ABA set standards for curriculum, faculty qualifications, facilities, and student outcomes. Law schools seeking legitimacy and access to national applicant pools dutifully pursued ABA accreditation. Graduates could move freely between states, and the legal profession enjoyed a certain uniformity.
But as time went on, criticism of ABA control grew louder.
Cracks in the System
Law deans and faculty often defended the system as promoting quality and facilitating interstate mobility. Yet others (scholars, practitioners, and even some judges) began to question whether ABA standards truly served the public interest or simply entrenched bureaucratic hurdles.
One major critique was that ABA accreditation had become increasingly expensive and burdensome. The organization imposed a growing list of requirements — some grounded in educational theory, others reflecting ideological trends like diversity mandates or “cross-cultural competency” courses. Critics argued these rules stifled innovation and drove up costs for students without clear evidence of improving educational outcomes.
The ABA’s “one-size-fits-all” approach also drew fire for ignoring regional needs. Texas is a vast state with underserved legal markets (like the Rio Grande Valley and parts of East and West Texas) where access to justice remains a challenge. Yet opening new law schools or experimenting with alternative models was nearly impossible under rigid ABA rules.
Professor Calls for Local Focus
Perhaps most importantly, the ABA has been accused of serving the interests of elite law schools and their deans rather than those of students or the public.
Josh Blackman, Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston, has penned many articles on the topic. He published an essay in June, arguing that SCOTX should reclaim authority over legal education from the ABA and NCBE, prioritize Texas’s needs over national uniformity, and ensure law schools train lawyers for Texas clients, not just for portability. “Students who will almost certainly practice in Texas no longer see the need to be versed in Texas law,” he said. “Regrettably, Texas courts and Texas clients will be poorly served”
In 2018, SCOTX adopted the UBE, eliminating Texas-specific law from being tested. Blackmun points out that this led to a decline in Texas-centered legal education, weakening lawyers’ preparedness for Texas practice. By abandoning the Texas-specific bar, Blackman argues, SCOTX ceded control to national bodies and cannot easily reverse course.
Blackman suggests that SCOTX could devise state-focused accreditation based on outcomes like bar passage and employment. It could rely on regional accrediting bodies for administrative standards and pursue interstate compacts for portability without surrendering control.
Pushback Against the New Shift
When SCOTX began considering changes in 2025, it invited comments from all corners — the Board of Law Examiners, law school deans, members of the bar, and the public. The response revealed deep divides.
Most Texas law school deans opposed any shift away from ABA accreditation. Their main concern? Portability. They feared that if Texas set its own standards, graduates might struggle to practice in other states (a valid worry for schools recruiting nationally). Some also cited bar passage rates as evidence that ABA standards correlated with educational quality (though critics pointed out these rates depend more on incoming student credentials than on accreditation rules).
But outside academia, voices pushing for change grew stronger. Scholars at institutions like the Civitas Institute organized symposia questioning whether ABA oversight truly benefited Texas or merely perpetuated costly barriers to entry. Practitioners argued that freeing Texas from ABA mandates could spur innovation like alternative training models tailored to local needs. It could also bring benefits like new schools in underserved areas.
Even among deans, there were nuanced takes. UT Law Dean Bobby Chesney acknowledged that while some standards ensured baseline adequacy, others imposed “best practices” that might not fit every school’s mission or resources. He advocated for outcome-based benchmarks (like bar passage rates and employment statistics) over prescriptive inputs.
A Turning Point
In April, SCOTX issued an order inviting public comment on whether to “reduce or end” reliance on the ABA.
The justices asked stakeholders to consider not just portability or tradition but also high-quality education, cost-effectiveness, public protection, and accountability. The public weighed in in the form of letters from deans, essays by scholars challenging orthodoxy, and input from practicing lawyers.
After months of debate, the Court signaled its intention to act. It issued a preliminary order proposing amendments to Rule 1 of its admission rules. The key change? Removing language that made ABA approval synonymous with “approved law school.” Instead, approval would rest with SCOTX itself.
The order laid out some guiding principles. Approval would hinge on simple criteria like bar passage rates — not ideological mandates. The Court pledged to preserve interstate mobility for graduates, recognizing that many lawyers move between states.
There won’t be any new compliance hoops for schools that are already approved to jump through. Schools losing ABA accreditation would not be automatically removed from Texas’s list. Non-ABA-accredited schools could petition for approval under a deliberative process. If another multi-state accreditor emerges (besides the ABA), Texas may reconsider its approach.
The Court invited further comments through December 1 and expects final amendments to take effect next January.
What Comes Next
Texas’s journey is far from over; final decisions await after public comment closes this winter. For now, all currently ABA-approved schools remain eligible for Texas bar admission; no one is being left behind overnight. But going forward, approval will depend on transparent state criteria—not distant national mandates.
Already, this shift marks a dramatic reassertion of state authority over legal education. This move is sure to be watched closely by other states like Florida and Ohio considering similar steps. If you’re a prospective law student or practitioner watching these developments unfold: stay tuned. The ground beneath legal education is shifting, and Texas is leading the way.
Related Resources:
- ABA Sues to Defend Law Firms Affected By Trump's Executive Orders (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- ABA Halts DEI Standard for Law School Accreditation (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Can the LSAT Stand the Test of Time? (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
