by Joseph Brophy, partner with Jennings Haug Keleher McLeod Waterfall
Who needs the ABA anyway? The thought has probably crossed most lawyers’, law students’, and prospective law students’ minds at least once or twice. But the question is no longer just a passing thought. At least, not for the supreme courts of Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Tennessee.
Earlier this year, President Trump took aim at Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices in, among other areas, higher education. Through Executive Order 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” and other orders, the administration sought to revoke federal grant funding for higher education organizations that implemented DEI policies. At the time, the ABA had such a policy in place, known as Standard 206, which required accredited law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity in student recruitment, hiring, and programming.
In February, President Trump and the Department of Justice threatened to revoke the ABA’s federal accreditation authority unless it complied with the administration’s policy directives regarding the elimination of DEI practices. In response to this threat, the executive orders, and a “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Department of Education dated February 14, 2025, the Council of the ABA section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar suspended Standard 206 until August 31, 2025 so that it can review and amend the standard. In May, that suspension was extended and will remain in effect until at least August 21, 2026. This appears to have stayed the ABA’s appointment with the Trump Administration’s guillotine, for now anyway.
However, the ABA’s apparent efforts to placate the feds have not stopped the states from looking at its accreditation monopoly. On April 4, the Supreme Court of Texas solicited public comments on “whether to reduce or end the Rules’ reliance on the American Bar Association. On September 16, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued order No. ADM2025-01403 that sought written comments from the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners, the Tennessee Access to Justice Commission, law schools, academia, professionals organizations, member of the Bar, and the public on several issues, including “whether the Court should modify, reduce, or eliminate its reliance on ABA accreditation…” The court cited, among its many goals, “lowering barriers to entry in the legal profession.” The court also references the Committee on Legal Education and Admissions Reform’s (CLEAR) purpose of “ensur[ing] public trust and confidence in the legal profession.”
On September 26, after reviewing public comments on the ABA, the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order, Misc. Docket No. 25-9070, “Preliminary Approval of Amendments to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas.” The Texas court stated that it “is of the tentative opinion that the ABA should no longer have the final say on whether a law school’s graduated are eligible to sit for the Texas bar exam and become licensed to practice law in Texas.” The proposed rule change would replace “American Bar Association” with “Supreme Court” in the definition of “Approved Law School.” Texas is currently soliciting comments regarding the proposed rule change, with an eye toward it taking effect in 2026. The court further clarified that it “intends to preserve the portability of Texas law-school degrees into other states.” But the court provided no details on how this would be accomplished in light of the pervasive requirement all over the country of an ABA accredited degree to practice law.
What started earlier this year as a splash in your morning headlines is fast becoming a wave. Both Florida and Ohio’s Supreme Courts are reviewing the accreditation process and requirements for law schools in their states. And as this wave swells, the universality and integrity of the legal education system in the United States is poised to be potentially inundated with new, non-accredited (by the ABA anyway) law schools. What that means, particularly for the portability of law degrees and the license to practice law in different states, is anyone’s guess. But it appears this train is leaving the station.