In an order issued on September 26th, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court proposed an edit to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas, eliminating reliance on the American Bar Association. The approval of this revision would result in the Texas Supreme Court, not the ABA, deciding what law schools are accredited, meaning that graduates from currently unaccredited law schools would be eligible to practice in the state of Texas. But what is the American Bar Association? Why does their accreditation matter, and what does this initiative mean for those who want to practice law in Texas?

In 1878, the American Bar Association was created in order to establish the American nation’s “legal and ethical foundation.” The ABA is a voluntary bar association, composed of 34 sections, forums, and divisions that help lawyers across the nation network and grow in their profession. Members have ranged from typical attorneys to prominent figures, such as Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and President William Howard Taft. The diverse makeup of the ABA serves as a testament to its importance for all attorneys, regardless of their status or how long they have been practicing. 

As participation has grown, the ABA’s roles have also expanded. In 1900, the ABA helped create the American Association of Law Schools (AALS), an organization still present today. In 1908, the ABA adopted the Canons of Professional Ethics, the first national ethical standards for lawyers, which exist today as the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Similarly, the Association created the Canons of Judicial Ethics in 1924, the first national standards of appropriate behavior for judges, which exist today as the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. These Models have played a fundamental role in shaping and improving the U.S. legal system, as they have clearly outlined how to behave in the courtroom and properly handle cases. Although they were created over a century ago, their guidelines continue to ensure stability in courtroom practices.

The ABA has not always been the leading accreditor of law schools. In 1921, the ABA adopted standards for legal education, beginning a formal program of approval; however, it was not until 1952 that the ABA began the accreditation of law schools. The accreditation process is extensive, lasting at least three years. To become accredited, the school must align with the standards the ABA has outlined, which are continuously revised to remain aligned with a changing legal system. Additionally, the law school must have been in operation for at least one year prior to applying for accreditation. Once approved, the school obtains a provisional status, signifying partial accreditation, before finally receiving full accreditation after at least three years of partial status. This final accreditation is followed by a full site evaluation, which determines if the institution is continuing to comply with the ABA’s educational expectations, at the school three years later, and then again every following decade. Today, 197 schools are accredited by the ABA. 

But why does accreditation matter? The ABA is viewed as the “gold standard” for regulating the legal profession.  Many states do not allow students who have not graduated from accredited schools to take their state’s bar exam. Some prohibit them from even sitting for the test. In contrast, states that do allow individuals who graduate from a non-accredited school to take their bar exam tend to require that they practice law in another state for some time.  This forms a predicament, as few states allow these individuals to practice in the first place. So, students who graduate from unaccredited schools fall into a trap, as they cannot practice in most states, yet, to be eligible to take the bar, they are required to have practiced. But some states, such as California, allow graduates of unaccredited schools to sit for their state bar; however, in California’s case, the test is extremely difficult to pass due to a high minimum passing score.  Ultimately, graduating from an accredited law school is, at this point in time, the best way to set oneself up for success in a legal career. 

Recently, the American Bar Association came into conflict with the federal government. On February 28th, 2025, in a letter addressed to the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Attorney General Pamela Bondi warned that it was “unclear how state bars can lawfully continue to require prospective lawyers to attend ABA-accredited law schools if the Council continues to abuse its privilege.” The abuse Bondi refers to was a proposed amendment to the ABA’s Standard 206, which focused on diversity and inclusion in the law school admission process. On March 11th, David Brennan, Chair of the Council, responded to Bondi’s message, affirming that Standard 206 was suspended and the Council was looking for ways to revise it so that it complied with federal law. However, Bondi and other federal government representatives wanted Standard 206 completely done away with, as made clear in a letter to all United States law school deans and admissions officers. On April 23rd, President Donald Trump issued an executive order focused on overhauling higher education accreditation, claiming that accreditors are “gatekeepers” who have “abused their authority” and “failed to ensure quality.” This executive order references the American Bar Association for its “unlawful race-based preferences,” which, at the time the order was issued, were no longer being enforced. Currently, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has suspended enforcement of Standard 206 until at least August 31st, 2026, as it does not comply with the federal government’s executive orders and current initiatives.

Texas, similar to the federal government, has also begun to question the ABA’s authority to accredit. Since 1983, Texas has afforded the ABA complete authority over the accreditation of law schools. Yet, in February of 2025, tensions between the Texas Supreme Court and the American Bar Association became apparent. In his 2025 State of the Judiciary Address, Jimmy Blacklock, Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, expressed his frustration with the American Bar Association, criticizing its failure to remain neutral during the current “fight going on in Washington.” Justice Blacklock declared it “absolutely essential that the State Bar remain completely politically neutral in everything it does,” hinting at a potential divide between the goals of the ABA and those of the Texas Supreme Court. On April 4th, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court announced that it was considering revising the “law school accreditation component of Texas’s bar admission requirements.” Upon this announcement, the Court accepted comments from the Texas Board of Law Examiners, the bar, the public, and Texas law school deans through July 1st. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, eight of the ten deans of accredited law schools in Texas implored the court to continue ABA oversight on accreditation. Robert Ahdieh, Texas A&M Law’s dean, did not sign the letter or send his own statement. Robert Chesney, University of Texas Law’s dean, did not sign the letter either; instead, he sent a separate comment, encouraging the Court to consider alternatives to completely eliminating ABA oversight, such as allowing other organizations, in addition to the ABA, to be official accreditors. Finally, on September 26th, the Texas Supreme Court announced they are of the “tentative opinion” that the Court, not the ABA, should “have the final say on whether a law school’s graduates are able to sit for the Texas bar exam and become licensed to practice law in Texas.” While other states, such as Ohio and Tennessee, have begun to review their state’s ABA requirements, Texas is the first to officially announce a plan to eliminate the ABA’s oversight of its law schools. The Texas Supreme Court expects this adjustment to be finalized after December 1st, 2025, and for it to take effect on January 1st, 2026. 

Ultimately, the American Bar Association has played a vital role in shaping the legal system in America. Due to recent conflicts with the federal government, more states have begun to reconsider the importance of maintaining a relationship between the ABA and their state bar exam. It remains to be seen what new process might take its place, as the Texas Supreme Court has yet to announce an official plan for an alternative to affording full oversight to the ABA. But while the future is unclear, Texas may help pave the way for a new era in law, unburdened by the influence of long-standing institutions.