Florida has taken a decisive step to loosen the American Bar Association’s long-held grip over who gets to enter the legal profession in the state, becoming the second state after Texas to move away from exclusive reliance on the ABA’s law school accreditation.
In a sharply watched ruling, the Supreme Court of Florida said it will no longer treat the ABA as the only body whose approval determines whether a law school’s graduates may sit for the state’s bar examination. While graduates of ABA-accredited institutions will remain eligible, the court signaled its intent to open the door to law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies.
At present, none of those agencies have accreditation standards tailored specifically to law schools. The court acknowledged that gap but said it intends to engage with other accrediting bodies to explore whether they are willing to step into that role.
The majority described the shift as part of a broader effort to expand access to quality and affordable legal education, while safeguarding academic freedom and nondiscrimination. The decision passed by a 5–1 vote.
Florida’s governor publicly welcomed the move, arguing that the ABA should not function as a gatekeeper for legal education. The ABA, for its part, responded by emphasizing that state courts have always retained ultimate authority over professional licensing and said it will continue refining its accreditation standards while promoting the value of a national system.
Florida’s decision closely follows action in Texas, where the state’s top court earlier this month finalized plans to create its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools and allowing their graduates to qualify for licensing. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also examining whether to rethink their dependence on ABA accreditation.
These developments come against the backdrop of a broader political clash between the ABA and the current U.S. administration. While the ABA’s law school accreditation arm operates separately from the organization’s policy and advocacy work, it has nonetheless been drawn into disputes over judicial criticism, federal grants, and executive actions targeting professional bodies and firms.
Within the ABA itself, the pressure has triggered internal reform efforts. Its council overseeing legal education has voted to create a new, more independent body focused solely on accreditation and to limit how often the organization’s broader policymaking group can intervene in accreditation standards. The changes, still pending final approval, are intended to streamline decision-making and reinforce institutional independence.
Not everyone in Florida’s judiciary was persuaded. The lone dissenter warned that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA marked an extraordinary departure from a system that has been in place for more than three decades and, in his view, has served the state well.
Together, Florida and Texas are reshaping a landscape long dominated by a single national accreditor, signaling a growing willingness among states to reclaim control over how future members of the profession are trained and approved.
