The Texas Supreme Court has broken the ABA monopoly on who which law schools are accredited for the Texas Bar: "After further consideration of the matter, including review of the many helpfulcomments received, the Court is of the tentative opinion 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.... https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Supreme-Court-of-Texas-Order-9-26-2025.pdf The ABA has had a death grip on law schools and bar exams in most of the country for decades and stifles innovation.
Perhaps there is some limitation on innovation, but we all know what this is really about and it bothers me when people hide behind ideas like "stifled innovation" for this sort of change. Conservatives don't like the ABA. They don't like that it has found many of Trump's judicial nominees to be not qualified. Of course, the ones who were rated not qualified typically had little to no actual legal experience, but for the GOP that doesn't seem to matter. They don't like that the ABA upholds ideals like equal access to the law and hold positions for accredited schools that racism and bias impede equal access to the law. The goal isn't to set up TexBar accreditation analogous to CalBar; it isn't to encourage dozens of fly-by-night law schools to start pumping out JD's with questionable legal knowledge and ability (though both may happen). It is to allow the Republicans, operating through the Texas Supreme Court, entirely composted of Republicans as it is, to mandate what can be taught in law schools in Texas (and what cannot be taught) and, quite possibly, to limit the ability of people with legal educations completed outside Texas and deemed undesirable from becoming licensed attorneys in Texas.
Discussion about the ABA's outsized role in law school accreditation has been going on around here a lot longer than MAGA has even been a thing. And yes, the ABA has absolutely stifled innovation, for example by refusing for decades to accredit JD programs that use distance learning.
I would give more credence to that argument if 1) there weren't more ABA accredited law schools with distance and hybrid programs than ever before (including 2 in Texas) and 2) the deans of each of Texas' law schools, both public and private, hadn't come out publicly against the change. If the law school deans don't think this is necessary to improve legal education in Texas, what other interests are being served?
The interests being served are those of existing attorneys who benefit from higher barriers to entry to their profession. We've known that forever too. Look, I'm not saying that the elected state supreme court in Texas isn't political, because I know that would be foolish. But the implication seems to be that the arguments for this decision are made up, or that one need be conservative or MAGA to agree with this decision, and that's simply not true.
TEXAS has stifled innovation. Like many states, Texas has had an alternative pathway for those who had earned non-ABA accredited degrees. This required licensure in another state and years of experience. However, prior to St. Mary's online program earning ABA approval, Texas had a strict prohibition on online programs. That meant that LLB programs earned online from another country could not be used, and someone with years of practice under their belt with an online JD from California also couldn't become licensed in Texas. Texas is one of the most inflexible and least innovative states when it comes licensed professions. Up until recently, Texas even had an in-seat requirement for some of the credits earned for CPA eligibility. Texas won't let aspiring psychologists sit for the licensing exam if they didn't complete a certain number of internship hours prior to graduation. There are other states that will let you complete most or all of your supervision hours after graduation. In the end, if states want to innovate, they can. No accreditor is stopping them.
New York has also been noteworthy for their rigidity. NY Bar Examiner standards exceed ABA requirements. Graduates of the hybrid JD at Syracuse University have only qualified to sit for the exam by applying for waivers. Otherwise, the Examiners have held a very strict "no online or correspondence learning" rule for many years. New York allows one to sit for the bar by reading the law but only if they have one year of study at an ABA accredited law school. There are also requirements on time to complete. As I noted at some point, there used to be a part-time JD program at Brooklyn Law School (non-distance learning) that did not qualify students to sit for the NY bar because it took too long to earn the degree. Recipients could be admitted to other states. But it meant that many graduates of an ABA accredited law school based in NY had to cross the river if they wanted to actually be lawyers. The ABA isn't doing this. States are free to establish their own standards, allow alternative pathways etc. While I'm all about not tying licensure to a specific accreditor it isn't the accreditor that stifles innovation unless the state allows them to do so.
Since the whole purpose of a law degree is to pass the bar, it is a no brainer for online. You don't need a law library of outdated paper books with access to WestLaw or Lexis. ABA has been a cartel and a left leaning one at that. Correspondence and online law and has been available in California and England for decades, something the ABA tries to ignore in its suppression campiagn against non ABA law schools.
Was shocked. Found an article with many reasons. One stood out to me. https://www.jdjournal.com/2025/09/29/texas-supreme-court-moves-to-take-law-school-oversight-from-aba-paving-the-way-for-state-controlled-accreditation-2/
Another one. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/07/10/texas-law-school-deans-fight-keep-aba-accreditation
I think part of the problem might be, incredibly, the emergence of "legal deserts", vast swaths of rural and frontier countryside that has no lawyers. This problem is acute in the West especially. ABA degrees are just too expensive. The "bar to entry" definitely exists and now, it's too high. Whether ABA Standards contribute to that I can't say. (I know what I think but I have no real proof.) What I do know is that ABA Standards concentrate far too much on "inputs" such as size and status/compensation of law school faculty, physical plant, and "diversity" and very little on whether the school produces JDs with a solid background in the practice and profession of law. California does fine with alternative law school accreditation sources. Texas is right to consider the matter.
I do grading for one of the bar prep courses, it is shocking how poorly some of the big name law school grads perform and how well some of Cal Bar accredited school grads do. The foreign schooled lawyers attempting the bar are usually completely clueless.
I've maintained for years that anyone interested in becoming a U.S. lawyer should start with a U.S. J.D. if at all possible rather than trying to qualify with a foreign degree. Yes, it can be done but a it's bound to be easier with even a California D/L J.D.
Do not underestimate the dedication of law school professors and administration to their own protection and preservation.
