The American Bar Association ( ABA ), a national voluntary association of legal professionals, voted earlier this month to repeal the law’s diversity policy for accredited law schools.
ABA approval common 206, which was previously titled Diversity and Inclusion, required accredited law schools in part to “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by having a faculty and staff that are different with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.”
Texas, which has delegated ABA certifications since 1983, is one of the states that mandates that bar exam candidates must graduate from.
The Texas Supreme Court made a final operational order to change that condition on January 6, 2026. Then, an applicant must graduate from a law school that has been approved by the Texas Supreme Court in order to take the bar exam in Texas. Texas was the first position to change this.
The proposed law shift for April 2025 was subject to commenting from the Texas Supreme Court.
The high court’s decision to change its attempt was not justified by the judge. Under President Donald Trump’s subsequent presidency, there was broader federal investigation of the variety, equity, and inclusion requirements.
The Texas Supreme Court’s decision to no longer rely on the ABA for legislation college approval was supported by the Federal Trade Commission’s letter of December 5, 2025.
The proposed amendment “rejects the ABA’s and its Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar’s” ( proposed amendment )’s authority to dictate the educational requirements for Texas bar exam candidates and attorneys,” the letter stated.
According to the Texas Supreme Court’s order, the list of authorized law schools was not anticipated to change immediately, and it intends to use a” set of basic, goal, and ideologically natural criteria” for approval.
Prior to the ABA’s approval council’s decision to overturn the rule in August, U.S. Department of Education staff suggested that the agency deny continuing to acknowledge the ABA’s status as a source of legal program accreditation.
According to a department director,” Department workers found the accreditor out of compliance with the agency’s approval requirements and recognition standards,” according to Bloomberg Law. Because the review process is ongoing and includes various stages, including by an impartial, bipartisan advisory committee in September, we won’t comment on specifics.
The ABA government head Melissa Hart stated in a statement to Bloomberg Law that the organization believes that the national accreditation of law schools is in the best interests of law students, the legal profession, and the public, and that we can best provide in this role with ongoing recognition from state supreme courts and the Department of Education. A growing number of state courts as well as the Department needed to keep recognition under Standard 206.
Similar changes have been made in Florida and Ohio, both of which have suggested allowing ABA accreditation alternatives. A comparable measure is also being considered by Tennessee.
The ABA accreditation council was voted on by a vote of 10 to 6 to repeal the resolution.
Beto Juarez, a council member who voted against the repeal, told Bloomberg,” We are at an inflection point.” That means I have to stand up for the values I have consistently defended throughout my entire career.
