this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
241 points (99.6% liked)

News

37166 readers
2143 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Texas is now the first state in the U.S. to eliminate American Bar Association oversight of its law schools, ending the state's 42-year-long reliance on the national organization.

The Texas Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday finalizing a tentative September opinion, asserting the ABA should "no longer have the final say" on which law school graduates can take the bar exam — a requirement to becoming a licensed lawyer in each state.

"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," reads the order signed by all nine justices.

The change means law school graduates who want to practice in Texas are no longer required to attend an ABA-accredited school. The power to approve those law schools now rests solely with the state's highest civil court.

In the absence of national guidance, however, the Texas Supreme Court stipulated in Tuesday's order that it intends to preserve graduates' ability to use Texas law school degrees in other states and out-of-state law degrees in Texas. The court also doesn't anticipate immediate changes to the current list of approved law schools and could return to relying on a different multi-state accrediting entity in the future.

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 72 points 3 months ago (4 children)

the Texas Supreme Court stipulated in Tuesday’s order that it intends to preserve graduates’ ability to use Texas law school degrees in other states

How exactly does Texas intend to do this in states that are not Texas? Do they not realize that they only have jurisdiction in Texas?

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The degrees should hold just like they have for as far back as I know. They’d have to pass the new state's bar exam if they want to practice, though because no one else is doing that.

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But is the question of whether or not the degrees will continue to hold after bar oversight is removed up to States in which the person will be practicing, or can Texas dictate that they must accept such degrees in the future?

I honestly don't actually know how accreditation and licensing and lawyer stuff actually works.

[–] Sybilvane@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the "lawyer" they used hadn't passed their bar exam yet.

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

This is part where the lawyer eats the bar logo

[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

A corrupt SCOTUS. Simple as that. TpUsa certified lawyers coming to a shadow Confederacy near you.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I don't think it can mean anything even in the best case scenario. If a Texas lawyer is now allowed to use their toilet paper degree in other states that doesn't mean they have to get hired.

If someone is dumb/cheap enough to hire one, they're going to get a shitty lawyer.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 58 points 3 months ago

this fucking state ....

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At least you won't have to worry about Texan lawyers practicing in other states, they'll stay here and make a mockery of justice.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Decertify all law schools in Texas.

Problem solved.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is a disease. Texas needs to be biopsied.

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 5 points 3 months ago

It’s another indicator of the rot in that country as well.

It’s falling apart.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Texas Supreme Court

ideologically neutral criteria

And if you believe that one, I have a mountain chalet in Florida to sell you.

the Texas Supreme Court stipulated in Tuesday's order that it intends to preserve graduates' ability to use Texas law school degrees in other states and out-of-state law degrees in Texas

The latter shouldn't be a problem, but I'm guessing that other states will be less enthusiastic about accepting lawyers accredited by the Cowboy Court..

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Probably depends on the state. I won’t be surprised to see other red states follow this lead.

[–] Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

Have fun with that TX. Worst state in the union.

lol I hope students of Texas law schools enjoy not being able to get hired outside of Texas. Fucking idiots.

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What we should expect to see shortly is a Red State Bar Association that’s respected by SCOTUS, and under circumstances where SCOTUS can, it will force blue states to accept its law. 

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

so what you are describing is the Full Faith and Credit Clause (US Constitution Article 4, Section 1) and specifically thinking of ways in which it might be abused similar to the Dred Scott decision

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

JFC.

If you're in Texas, get out.

If you're staying in Texas to ride the shit wave for your own enrichment, fuck you.

If you're planning on moving to Texas, WHY?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

If you’re in Texas, get out.

Have you ever been to Texas? Longest drive i ever took was to Austin from San Francisco. Half of it was through Texas. Leaving it is not just some casual thing. But i agree with you.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

In theory this is not a bad idea, it could bring down costs for educating new lawyers. Extreme skepticism for texas' motives in doing this though. Texas has never cared about anyone's cost except the oil barons.

Edit: my guess is the thing texas is worried about is professional standard and corruption getting their best toadies disbarred.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Hahaha. Awesome

[–] sixpants@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

My brother in laws dad was a judge for 30+ years in a southern state.

Never went to law school. Just sat for the BAR exam for the hell of it, passed, and the rest is baffling to me.