Written By: Ryann Howard
Early this month, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order finalizing a September tentative opinion ending the state’s delegation to the American Bar Association (ABA) in law school accreditation for admission to the Texas Bar. This decision signals a significant shift in how Texas regulates entry into the legal profession and has sparked debate as other states consider reassessing their relationship with the ABA.
Background: What is ABA-Accreditation?
ABA accreditation refers to the ABA’s evaluation and approval of law schools based on predefined standards. These standards include factors such as faculty qualifications, admissions policies, bar passage rates, and curriculum requirements.
Since 1952, the ABA has been the national agency for law school accreditation. Nearly all U.S. states, excluding a handful that offer an alternative apprenticeship option or state-accredited institutions, require graduation from an ABA-approved law school to sit for the bar exam. A primary advantage of attending an ABA-accredited law school is degree portability. Graduates are generally eligible to take the bar exam in any state, whereas graduates of a non-accredited institution may be limited to where they can sit for the bar exam or be required to comply with additional requirements.
Historically, states have delegated the authority of accreditation to the ABA to ensure uniformity and avoid administrative burdens associated with independently evaluating law schools. In Texas, this role has been delegated to the ABA since the 1980’s, making ABA accreditation a prerequisite for bar eligibility.
What the January Order Does
The January 6th order grants final approval of amendments to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas. These amendments transfer authority over law school approval to the Texas Supreme Court, rather than the ABA. Therefore, the Court will have final say over which law schools’ graduates may sit for the Texas bar exam.
It is important to note that the change does not result in any immediate disruptions. Currently, the list of approved law schools remains the same as those under the ABA. Although the order re-asserts authority over approval of law schools, the ABA will continue to work with Texas in ensuring the portability of law degrees in and out of the state. The Court additionally does not anticipate any immediate changes to the list of approved law schools.
What Happens Now?
The Court’s reason for the departure cites stability and predictability for law schools while still allowing flexibility moving forward. To do this, the Court assures it will maintain accreditation for law schools already approved “that satisfy a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria using metrics no more onerous than those currently required by the ABA.”
At this time, for a currently approved law school to remain accredited it must comply with ABA standards pertaining to bar passage rates, admission practices, academic standards, and required disclosures. Additionally, the Court “does not intend to impose additional accreditation, compliance, or administrative burdens on currently approved law schools.”
Debate Around the Decision
The Texas Supreme Court has not given a reason for initiating the change, however, this decision follows a period of tension between the ABA, political leaders, and the legal community. Recently, the ABA’s diversity and inclusion requirements have been criticized by conservative lawmakers, including President Donald Trump, whose administration threatened to pull the ABA’s national accrediting authority. In response, the ABA has since suspended the enforcement of their diversity, equity, and inclusion standards.
Critics of the Texas decision have raised concern about uncertainty and fragmentation. Austen Parrish, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, warned that if other states follow Texas’s lead, law schools could be faced with complying with a multitude of potentially conflicting state-specific standards, undermining efficiency and uniformity that the ABA process was designed to provide.
Supporters of the decision, however, argue that ABA accreditation has contributed to rising costs of law schools. They contend that allowing states greater regulatory control could encourage innovation in legal education while expanding access to the profession. Martin Pritikin, dean of Purdue Global Law School, a non-ABA-accredited online institution, has argued that virtual legal education can provide high quality education at a lower cost.
Comparison to California
Some observers point to California as a potential middle ground. California offers bar eligibility through multiple channels including ABA-accredited law schools, California-accredited law schools, and unaccredited schools or apprenticeships. This provides a state licensing structure in tandem with the ABA, which preserves ABA accreditation while allowing greater state involvement.
Texas, however, has chosen a different approach. Rather than creating parallel systems, it has reasserted exclusive authority over accreditation, making a complete structural break from the ABA.
Looking Ahead
Although the Texas Supreme Court’s order does not immediately alter bar eligibility or accreditation for existing law schools, its long-term effects remain unclear. Outcomes will depend on how the Court defines and applies its standard for approval and whether those standards continue to align with those used by the ABA.
This decision also raises questions as other states consider reassessing their own reliance on the ABA. Texas’s approach may influence larger decisions about the balance between state control and nationwide consistency in legal education.
Sources:
Karen Sloan, Texas plans to end ABAs role in states law school oversight, Reuters (Sept. 29, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/texas-plans-end-abas-role-states-law-school-oversight-2025-09-29/.
Law School Accreditation, American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/.
Ryan Autullo, Alex Ebert, & Eric Heisig, Florida, Ohio Consider Dropping ABA After Texas Cuts Ties, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 7, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-ohio-consider-dropping-aba-after-texas-cuts-ties.
Tatyana Monnay, ABA Halts Enforcement of DEI Rule in Reaction to Trump Agenda, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 21, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/aba-halts-enforcement-of-dei-rule-in-reaction-to-trump-agenda.
Texas Supreme Court, Final Approval of Amendments to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas (Jan 6. 2026), https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461882/269002.pdf.
Toluwani Osibamowo, Texas becomes first state to end American Bar Association oversight of law schools, Houston Public Media (Jan. 7, 2026), https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/court/2026/01/07/540073/texas-supreme-court-ends-american-bar-association-law-school-accreditation/.