NICOLE KIDD—Who gets to be a lawyer in Florida? Effectively since 1955, but technically since 1992, only graduates of law schools accredited by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) could become members of The Florida Bar, with a few narrow exceptions. That is no longer the case. In a per curiam opinion dated January 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Florida opened the doors for a new group of law school graduates eligible to sit for the Florida Bar Examination: those with non-ABA accredited Juris Doctor degrees––though the change does not take effect until October 1, 2026.
This decision began in March of 2025, when the Florida Supreme Court created the Workgroup on the Role of the American Bar Association in Bar Admission Requirements to investigate whether The Florida Bar should continue its near-exclusive reliance on the ABA’s vetting process for its future generations of lawyers. By October of that year, the Workgroup produced a report of its findings and proposed a variety of potential changes to the current regulatory framework, including the removal of the ABA-accreditation requirement. Ultimately, the Court adopted an amendment to Rule 4-13.2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, changing the meaning of the term “accredited” from any ABA-approved or provisionally approved law school, to any law school approved or provisionally approved by:
(1) a programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education to accredit programs in legal education that lead to the first professional degree in law; or
(2) an institutional accrediting agency that is recognized by the United States Department of Education to accredit institutions of higher education, provided the institutional accrediting agency is approved by the court.
Presently, the U.S. Department of Education only recognizes the ABA as qualified to accredit law schools. The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion acknowledged this and emphasized that the amendment is intended to accommodate the potential creation of alternative programmatic accreditors, for which the Court offered its express support. In terms of subsection 2—institutional accrediting agencies—the Court discussed its plans to contact the agencies currently recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and assess their thoughts on standards that the court may require them to implement in their law school approval processes.
As a result of this change, current ABA-accredited law schools may eventually find accreditation elsewhere under standards they are more willing to conform to. Alternatively, schools that have never been ABA-accredited may find status under a new accrediting body. If the new accreditors are recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, schools in both scenarios could produce graduates ready to sit for the Florida Bar Examination.
The list of schools approved by the ABA is fairly extensive—the ABA currently accredits 197 institutions that confer the Juris Doctor. Many states allow a bar applicant to hold a degree from a non-ABA-approved law school, though oftentimes the applicant must individually prove that their education was sufficient, sometimes even needing to show years of experience practicing in another state. Texas was the first state to end its reliance on the ABA for accreditation purposes, instead transferring the approval power directly to the Supreme Court of Texas. The Texas Supreme Court’s final approval order included its own list of law schools as satisfying the law study requirements for admission to The State Bar of Texas. Other states with exclusive reliance on the ABA, including Ohio and Tennessee, have considered taking similar action.
The recent change in state ABA-accreditation rules represents one part of the ongoing attempts to weaken the association’s influence on the judiciary. Federal judicial nominees have been precluded from communicating with the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which traditionally evaluates nominees before Senate confirmation hearings. Certain federal agencies have instructed officials not to participate in ABA activities on government time. Federal funding streams connected to rule-of-law initiatives involving the ABA have been cancelled.
Largely purported by Republican politicians, the case against the ABA accuses the association of partisan bias. For example, when the Supreme Court of Florida released its opinion, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wrote on X that “[t]he (highly partisan) ABA should not be a gatekeeper for legal education or the legal profession.”
Further, in March of 2025, the ABA suspended its Standard 206 in response to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter accusing the Standard of “unlawful race and sex discrimination under the guise of ‘diversity.’” Standard 206 requires a law school to demonstrate its commitment to diversity and inclusion by having a student body, faculty, and staff that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity. The suspension has been extended until August 31, 2026, and no law school is currently required to comply with Standard 206.
As the fate of the ABA remains uncertain considering the Republican-controlled federal government, state bars—including Florida—await what alternative associations they will rely on instead.
