Texas is pushing to be the first state to no longer use the American Bar Association to oversee its law schools. According to an order issued on Sept. 26, the Texas Supreme Court aims to determine which law school can be accredited, instead of the ABA. The ABA has set the standards for law school accreditation and aspiring lawyers for decades, founded on a “commitment to set the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation,” according to its website. ABA-approved law schools are institutions and programs that follow the organization’s standards and confer the Juris Doctor degree and the Master of Laws degree.
The removal of the ABA destroys the state’s credibility in the field and its law schools’ reputations. Most states require graduation from ABA-approved schools before individuals can take the bar exam. The exam was created for law licensure, determining if applicants hold an “acceptable education credential,” according to the ABA. The Texas Supreme Court addressed the bar exam in the order, stating 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.” Law school graduates must pass the bar exam to become practicing lawyers. This traditional, logical and educationally honorable process is being compromised by the state, with no explanation as to why.
The ABA does, however, have diversity requirements under attack by President Donald Trump’s administration, which threatened to pull its accrediting power earlier this year. Through Standard 206, the ABA required law schools to commit to diversity and inclusion for faculty and student populations. In a Feb. 28 letter to the organization, Attorney General Pam Bondi said this policy must be repealed immediately. This caused the ABA to temporarily suspend enforcing this rule, considering updates to ensure inclusion in its schools.
One can wonder how the organization’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion policy may affect its honorable standing in the eyes of discriminatory, conservative states such as Texas. Or perhaps, the Texas Supreme Court does not value the opinion of national academic programs and would rather, in its “big fish” nature, act as the only one with the power to name something as reputable and respected.
In April, the Texas Supreme Court said it would review the ABA requirement, but no reasoning was provided. Now, the court has no plans to replace accreditation, stating in the order that it “may consider, in the future, returning to greater reliance on a multi-state accrediting entity other than the ABA should a suitable entity become available.” In an April interview with Bloomberg Law, Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock said that the ABA “does not seem to be the kind of organization that all lawyers, regardless of their viewpoint, can be proud to be a part of.”
In the order, the court has asked members of the public to submit comments on this change by Dec. 1 for changes to take place by January 2026. The Texas Supreme Court should not remove the ABA for law school oversight; the organization’s longstanding prestige has not formed from tradition, but from commitment to ethics, academia and proper law instruction. The ABA’s absence in the state would put state lawyers’ honor at risk and tank its law schools’ reputations.
