Texas has become the first U.S. state to end American Bar Association (ABA) oversight of its law schools, ending a 42-year reliance on the national organization. The Texas Supreme Court finalized the decision on Tuesday, following a tentative ruling in September.
Under the new order, the ABA will no longer determine which law school graduates can sit for the Texas bar exam. This exam is required to become a licensed lawyer in the state. The Texas Supreme Court will now have sole authority to approve law schools and establish criteria for graduates to take the bar.
“The Court intends to provide stability, certainty, and flexibility to approved law schools,” said the order signed by all nine justices. “Ongoing approval will be granted to schools that meet simple, objective, and neutral standards, using metrics no stricter than current ABA requirements.”
The ruling allows law school graduates to practice in Texas without attending an ABA-accredited school. However, the court plans to preserve the ability for Texas law degrees to be recognized in other states and for out-of-state degrees to remain valid in Texas. Current approved law schools will see no immediate changes, and the court may consider alternative multi-state accreditation in the future.
The ABA, a voluntary organization for lawyers, has accredited U.S. law schools since 1923. Accreditation requires schools to meet standards in faculty quality, curriculum, facilities, student resources, diversity, and bar passage rates. Not all U.S. law schools are ABA-accredited.
Historically, the Texas Supreme Court oversaw law school approval until 1983, when it delegated this power to the ABA. The court first signaled its intent to end ABA oversight in April, seeking comments from the Texas Board of Law Examiners, law school deans, the State Bar, and the public. A tentative decision came in September, followed by a public comment period that closed on December 1.
The court has not publicly explained why it initiated the change. Observers note the decision follows tensions involving former President Donald Trump, the ABA, and the broader legal community. Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order stripping the ABA of millions in U.S. funding. The ABA sued in February, claiming the action violated administrative law.
Attorney General Pam Bondi also sent a letter to the ABA, claiming its diversity requirements conflicted with the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling ending affirmative action in college admissions. Bondi warned that Texas could remove ABA accreditation authority.
The ABA criticized these actions, arguing that executive and political pressures were targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs meant to address historical inequities.
Earlier this week, two Federal Trade Commission officials supported the Texas Supreme Court’s decision, stating that the ABA had created a monopoly over law school approval. They said this limited competition and imposed costly restrictions on schools. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a Biden appointee, had also banned political appointees from associating with the ABA in February.
Eight of Texas’ ten ABA-accredited law schools opposed abandoning ABA oversight, warning that it could increase costs and reduce mobility for lawyers. The University of Texas School of Law was an exception, encouraging the court to explore alternatives to ABA accreditation.
This is not the first time ABA accreditation has faced scrutiny. In 1995, the Department of Justice reached a settlement after its antitrust division sued the ABA for allegedly using its power to protect faculty economic interests.
Other states, including Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee, are reportedly considering similar moves to reduce or eliminate ABA oversight. Texas’ decision could set a precedent, potentially reshaping law school accreditation and licensing across the country.
By taking control of law school approval, Texas aims to maintain flexibility, streamline standards, and preserve opportunities for graduates while keeping options open for future multi-state accreditation or reciprocal recognition.
