Already under fire from the Trump administration, the American Bar Association’s role as the nation’s chief law school accreditor faces a new threat—this time from a growing list of Republican-led states.
On Jan. 6, the Texas Supreme Court finalized an opinion saying 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 in Texas.”
The decision made Texas the first state to end the ABA’s primary role in vetting law schools. Nine days later, the Florida Supreme Court followed suit, saying that retaining the ABA would not be in “Floridians’ best interest.”
Florida and Texas may be the tip of a red state iceberg that threatens to sink the ABA’s status as the sole, nationally recognized law school accreditor. The Ohio Supreme Court has created an advisory committee to review the accreditation process for the state’s law schools. And Tennessee’s supreme court is also seeking public comment on whether it should modify, reduce, or eliminate its reliance on ABA accreditation.
Taking Heat
The state actions follow an April 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump that sought to “overhaul the higher education accreditation system, ensuring colleges and universities deliver high-quality, high-value education free from unlawful discrimination and ideological overreach.”
The order took specific aim at the ABA, asserting that its embrace of diversity, equity and inclusion in vetting schools violated federal law. “The American Bar Association’s accreditation standards for law schools require unlawful race-based preferences, which the attorney general recently reminded the ABA are illegal,” the order said.
While the ABA has taken heat from conservatives for years over perceived liberal bias, the temperature has spiked dramatically since Trump returned to office a year ago.
The Department of Justice and other federal agencies have banned appointees from participating in ABA events, holding leadership positions in the organization, or renewing memberships. And the attorney general has denied the ABA its traditional role in helping review judge candidates—a stance previous Republican administrations have taken. The ABA is also locked in legal battles with the administration, suing over Trump executive orders targeting major law firms and cuts in funding for ABA-aligned programs.
‘Stability, Certainty and Flexibility’
Removing the ABA from the accreditation process could represent a seismic shift in law school oversight. Most states require that prospective lawyers hold a degree from an ABA-approved law school before they can sit for a bar exam.
According to Trump officials, the current system allows the ABA a monopoly that increases law school costs and promotes ideological views they disdain. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, the heads of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning and the Bureau of Competition supported the state’s new accreditation policy calling it “an important step in weakening the ABA’s enduring monopoly and resulting power to impose costly, overly burdensome law school accreditation requirements.”
In its order, the Texas Supreme Court said it intends to “preserve the portability of Texas law-school degrees into other states and to preserve the portability of out-of-state law-school degrees into Texas.” It will also not impose “additional accreditation, compliance, or administrative burdens on currently approved law schools.” Indeed, the list of law schools approved by the court includes the same institutions approved by the ABA.
The court said it “intends to provide stability, certainty and flexibility to currently approved law schools by guaranteeing ongoing approval to schools that satisfy a set of simple, objective and ideologically neutral criteria (such as bar exam passage rate) using metrics no more onerous than those currently required by the ABA.”
A Suitable Alternative
The Texas Supreme Court’s order also said losing ABA accreditation will not mean the automatic removal of a law school from Texas’s list of approved schools. And it said it intends to consult with the Texas Board of Law Examiners to develop “a deliberative approach to requests from law schools not currently accredited by the ABA that wish to be added to Texas’s list.”
Only a handful of other states currently allow graduates from law schools outside the ABA-approved list to take the bar exam. In California, for example, graduates from a separate roster of state bar-accredited law schools are allowed to take the bar exam alongside graduates of ABA-accredited programs.
The Texas court also suggested that it might consider relying on a multistate accrediting body other than the ABA “should a suitable entity become available.” In their letter to the Texas Supreme Court, officials from the Trump FTC floated the possibility that alternative accreditors “could discipline any attempts by the ABA to impose costs or ideological mandates that serve little educational purpose.”
In its order, the Florida Supreme Court, too, said it may be willing to join a new accreditor and that its rule changes “create the opportunity” for additional entities to carry out law school accrediting functions. “The court acknowledges that additional programmatic accreditors for legal education programs may be recognized in the future and expresses its support for that possibility; this amendment is intended to accommodate that outcome,” the Florida court said.
A Model for Others?
Last March, the Florida Supreme Court appointed a six-member working group to propose possible alternatives to the current regulatory framework for bar admission, including options that would end reliance on the ABA.
Members of the working group included a federal judge, the dean of the Florida State University College of Law, a law professor and three lawyers in private practice, one of whom is a former state supreme court justice. Most of the working group’s members had strong conservative credentials or ties to the Republican Party.
The working group produced 12 potential amendments to Florida’s accreditation rules—a list of changes that some observers have said could serve as a foundation for other states considering a move away from the ABA and for the formation of a new interstate accrediting authority. The Florida Supreme Court said in its Jan. 15 order that the amendments directly address ABA accreditation standards that “require or result in discrimination,” and allow recognition of any new accrediting institution recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.
The working group’s proposals also extended “to broader structural reforms,” the court said, “including the implementation of a court-approval mechanism for law schools, which could take various forms, such as the adoption of a defined set of essential standards with which law schools must comply or the establishment of a comprehensive state-accreditation system.”
The ABA’s Response
The body tasked by the ABA with handling accreditation issues is attempting to stem the tide. On Jan. 16, the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar passed two amendments to its bylaws aimed at highlighting its independence from the rest of the organization.
One of the amendments creates a separate Accreditation Council, which will focus on law school oversight. The other cuts back the number of times the ABA is allowed to review changes made by the council to accreditation standards. Both moves are designed to “clarify the existing distinction between the section’s functions and the council’s accreditation work, reinforce the council’s independent decision making and make its processes more efficient,” the section’s managing director told the ABA Journal.
In November, the council also said it will conduct a comprehensive review of its accreditation standards and has appointed a committee of law school deans, state supreme court judges and other stakeholders to advise on the process. The committee includes one of the members of the Florida working group and a Texas Supreme Court justice.
“This committee…will focus on ensuring that the council’s standards enable law schools to innovate and provide a quality legal education without imposing needless burdens or costs,” Daniel Thies, an Illinois lawyer who chairs the ABA’s Legal Education and Admissions council, said in a statement.
Pushing Back
In an op-ed for Bloomberg, Thies said his council’s accreditation work “is nonpartisan and independent” from the rest of the ABA. “Whatever one thinks of the ABA’s politics, the organization isn’t involved in council enforcement actions, doesn’t choose council personnel and can’t dictate the content of any standard,” Thies wrote.
Thies also pushed back against claims that the current system creates “undue burdens and increases costs” for schools and students. “Several accredited schools charge less than $15,000 per year in tuition, showing that a quality legal education need not carry an excessive price tag,” Thies said.
“In reality, any move away from a single national accreditor could jeopardize these low prices,” Thies wrote. “Schools would need to seek approval from multiple accreditors, likely leading to an increase in accreditation fees and compliance costs.”
---
David L. Brown is a legal affairs writer and consultant, who has served as head of editorial at ALM Media, editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal and Legal Times, and executive editor of The American Lawyer. He consults on thought leadership strategy and creates in-depth content for legal industry clients and works closely with Best Law Firms as senior content consultant.
