Relating to implicit bias training for justices and judges of state courts, judicial officers, certain court personnel, and attorneys licensed to practice law in this state.
HB 1363 would require implicit bias training for a broad set of Texas judicial actors and court personnel, and it would also require continuing legal education on implicit bias for all attorneys licensed in the state. The bill defines the required training topics broadly, covering racial, ethnic, gender, religious, age, mental disability, physical disability, and sexual harassment issues, and it specifies that the instruction must address implicit bias, explicit bias, unconscious bias, systemic bias, and strategies to reduce their effects in the legal system.
For judges and certain court personnel, the bill adds a new Chapter 56 subchapter requiring two hours of approved implicit bias training every two years, beginning when a judge is elected or appointed or when covered personnel begin employment. For attorneys, it adds a new continuing education requirement of one hour per compliance period. The Court of Criminal Appeals would approve judicial training courses and adopt rules to administer the program, while the State Bar and Texas Supreme Court would be involved in approving attorney continuing education courses and related rules. The bill also sets implementation deadlines, including rulemaking by January 1, 2026, and a delayed initial compliance date of January 1, 2028 for current judges and covered court personnel.
The bill would amend state law governing judicial and court personnel training and create new statutory requirements in the Government Code and the attorney continuing education framework in Chapter 81. It would expand the role of the Court of Criminal Appeals in overseeing training programs, including monitoring financial and program performance of grant recipients under Chapter 56 and restricting grant funds to approved activities. In practical terms, the bill would impose new mandatory education obligations on judges, judicial officers, court staff, and lawyers, and would likely require the development or approval of new training curricula statewide.
The overall sentiment reflected by the available record is procedural rather than divided: the bill was reported from the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee and sent to Calendars, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Based on the bill’s subject matter, it appears aimed at improving fairness, professionalism, and public confidence in the courts, but the absence of recorded discussion means there is no direct evidence here of support or opposition from specific stakeholders.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on whether mandatory implicit bias training is an effective use of judicial and legal education time, whether the state should impose additional continuing education requirements on attorneys, and how broadly the training mandate should reach into court personnel roles. Another possible issue is administrative burden: the bill requires rulemaking, course approval, and oversight by multiple institutions, which may raise concerns about cost, implementation, and the scope of state oversight over judicial and legal training.
HB 1363 would amend the Government Code to create a new mandatory implicit bias training regime for judges, judicial officers, certain court personnel, and attorneys, while also revising existing judicial and court personnel training provisions in Chapter 56. It would expand the Court of Criminal Appeals’ oversight authority over training programs and require the State Bar and Texas Supreme Court to support attorney continuing education requirements. The bill would not directly alter substantive rights or court procedures, but it would impose new compliance obligations and administrative responsibilities on the judiciary and the legal profession.
The available legislative record shows the bill moving forward through committee without any recorded votes or transcript excerpts indicating strong opposition or debate. That suggests at least procedural acceptance at the committee stage, and the bill’s stated purpose indicates a reform-oriented, equity-focused approach intended to improve awareness of bias in the legal system. However, because no discussion snippets are provided, the record does not reveal whether support was enthusiastic or whether concerns were raised behind the scenes.
Likely areas of contention include the effectiveness and necessity of mandatory implicit bias training, especially for judges and licensed attorneys who already face continuing education requirements. Some stakeholders may object to the bill’s breadth, which reaches not only judges but also court personnel and all attorneys statewide, and to the inclusion of topics such as sexual harassment within an implicit bias framework. Others may be concerned about administrative costs, rulemaking complexity, course approval standards, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeals and State Bar are the appropriate bodies to oversee these requirements.