Key points:
- The Texas Supreme Court is seeking public comment on possibly ending the ABA law school approval requirement for bar admission.
- Chief Justice Blacklock criticized the ABA for taking political positions in recent federal power disputes.
- Texas has relied on the ABA for accreditation decisions since 1983.
The Texas Supreme Court announced Friday that it is considering whether to eliminate or revise the long-standing rule requiring bar applicants to graduate from a law school approved by the American Bar Association (ABA). The court has invited public comment on the accreditation requirement and alternative models, setting a July 1 deadline for feedback.
According to the Law360 report, the move follows criticism of the ABA by Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who, during his February state of the judiciary address, condemned the organization’s “political statement” on presidential executive authority. “We will accept nothing less than neutrality from the State Bar of Texas,” Blacklock stated, expressing concern about the ABA’s perceived partisanship in national legal debates.
The Texas Supreme Court has delegated law school accreditation authority to the ABA since 1983, but the new order signals a willingness to reconsider that approach. “Before 1983, the court decided which law schools would satisfy the law study requirements for licensure based on standards adopted by the court,” the justices wrote.
The order calls on the Texas Board of Law Examiners, state law school deans, the State Bar of Texas, and the general public to submit written comments. The court requested feedback on how to promote high-quality, cost-effective legal education while protecting the public and meeting legal service needs across the state.
ABA managing director for accreditation Jenn Rosato Perea responded to the court’s inquiry, stating, “The council’s primary purpose in accreditation has been and continues to be contributing meaningfully to the production of effective and ethical lawyers.”
While the Texas Supreme Court did not propose a specific alternative, its decision to solicit input reflects broader national conversations about regulatory independence and professional gatekeeping. The court’s action also aligns with growing scrutiny of the ABA’s role in legal education and governance, particularly in states pursuing deregulatory or politically conservative agendas.
The State Bar of Texas declined to comment on the order, and the Texas Board of Law Examiners did not respond to requests for comment. Law schools across the state, including South Texas College of Law Houston, have yet to formally weigh in.
The outcome of this review could reshape the landscape for legal education and licensure in Texas and potentially influence other states considering a move away from national accreditation standards.
