Supreme Court of Texas Removes ABA as “Final Say” on Accreditation

In September, the Supreme Court of Texas signaled that it would remove the American Bar Association as the “final say” on accreditation. After a comment period, SCOTX adopted its draft proposal without any revisions. In the short term, any school that is currently ABA-accredited will be accredited by SCOTX. Texas will soon adopt a new standard:

In Misc. Dkt. No. 25-9070, 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.

To be sure, schools can voluntarily maintain ABA accreditation. At least in the short term, I suspect most schools (including my own) will not change the status quo. But once the question of portability is worked out, schools may be more amenable to innovation. Indeed, SCOTX signaled that a multi-state accrediting entity other than the ABA may be in the works:

may consider, in the future, returning to greater reliance on a multistate accrediting entity other than the ABA should a suitable entity become available.

Cheers to the Supreme Court of Texas for taking this important step. And jeers to the ABA, an organization that regrettably squandered its good will and reputation.

I think back to the essay I wrote for the ABA Journal in April 2023, titled “The ABA needs ideological diversity to ensure its future.” I concluded:

If the ABA does not arrest its progressive lurch, the organization risks its own obsolescence. Model Rules will not be adopted. Evaluations of judicial nominees will be ignored. The accreditation monopoly will cease. And so on. A decline in membership will be the least of the ABA’s problems. The ABA can either adapt to a new political reality or fade away like the guilds of yore.

All is proceeding as I anticipated.