Although the 2026 American Bar Association (ABA) Midyear Conference was held in San Antonio this year, the event included an elephant in the room the size of the Lone Star state. While the YLD delegation considered questions about the adoption of the NextGen Bar Exam debuting in July 2026 into law schools’ curriculums, there was little-to-no discussion about a recent decision from the Texas Supreme Court that ended the requirement of ABA accreditation for the practice of law in Texas. 

On January 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order giving final approval to amendments to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas, changing who has the “final say” over which law schools qualify graduates to sit for the Texas bar exam. Rather than treating the ABA as the decisive gatekeeper, the court moved that authority to itself. Texas the first state to officially sever ties in this way.

Although some of the coverage of this decision has been dramatic and heavily politicized, it’s important to be precise about what Texas did—and did not—do with respect to the ABA. The court did not “ban” the ABA or forbid Texas law schools from pursuing or keeping ABA accreditation. Instead, the court redefined “approved law school” for Texas bar eligibility so that approval is determined by the Texas Supreme Court, not the ABA.

In its September 26, 2025 “preliminary approval” order (Misc. Docket No. 25-9070), the court said it was of the “tentative opinion” that the ABA should “no longer have the final say” over whether a law school’s graduates may sit for the Texas bar. The court advised that “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 using metrics no more onerous than those currently required by the ABA.” The court invited public comment and indicated the amendments were expected to take effect in early 2026.

The January order (Misc. Docket No. 26-9002) then finalized those amendments and approved an initial list of “approved law schools,” which the court said includes the schools already approved under the existing rules. The order also stated that, for currently approved schools to maintain “ongoing approval,” they need to ensure compliance with specific ABA standards (including Standards 316, 502(a)-(c), 503, and 509).

In both the preliminary and final orders, the court framed the change as an effort to re-assert its authority over licensure standards while maintaining stability for existing schools. The court also emphasized the practical concern of degree portability as one of its primary motives. Specifically, the court said it intends to preserve the portability of Texas law degrees into other states and of out-of-state law degrees into Texas.

Reporting on the change has consistently highlighted the most immediate consequence: Texas bar applicants are no longer categorically required to hold a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school to be eligible for Texas licensure. At the same time, the ABA’s accrediting arm has indicated that it will continue working with Texas and other jurisdictions with an eye toward preserving interstate mobility of legal credentials. This underscores a central tension. Texas can set its own licensure rules, but it can’t unilaterally determine what other states will accept for their own bar-admission requirements.

Because Texas has moved the ultimate approval decision in-state, the change could create room for nontraditional or lower-cost programs (specifically, programs that are not ABA-accredited) to seek recognition for Texas bar eligibility. But students may weigh that opportunity against portability risk if they later want to practice in states that continue to use ABA accreditation as a default screen—exactly the concern the Texas court flagged when it promised to prioritize portability.

Even if ABA approval is no longer mandatory for Texas licensure, many Texas law schools may still treat ABA accreditation as strategically essential for recruiting, national reputation, federal clerkship competitiveness, and graduate mobility. That inference follows from the court’s own decision to keep parts of the ABA framework in place for ongoing approval (e.g., named ABA standards) and from commentary emphasizing interstate uniformity as a reason states historically relied on ABA accreditation.

The decision may also produce a more Texas-specific regulatory and litigation landscape. With the Texas Supreme Court explicitly taking responsibility for approval decisions and future applications from non-ABA-accredited schools, disputes over criteria, fairness, and implementation are more likely to be fought in Texas administrative and judicial channels. Over time, that could reshape the governance of legal education in Texas and invite challenges from stakeholders who prefer national standardization—or from those who argue Texas did not go far enough. Put another way, Texas’s decision regarding ABA compliance might allow Texas to forge legal landscape even further from its sibling-states than this single decision might imply.

Proponents of loosening ABA reliance argue that lowering structural barriers could expand the supply of lawyers and reduce costs, potentially helping address gaps in legal access. Whether that happens in Texas will depend on how strictly the court applies its “simple, objective” approach in practice and whether new entrants actually produce graduates who pass the bar and choose to serve underserved communities at lower rates.

Alexander J. Thibodeau is a District III Council Representative and an associate attorney at Warner, Norcross & Judd.

Like what you read? Want to see more SBM YLS content? Subscribe below!