Texas AG Tells School Districts That Were Not Enjoined to Comply with Statute Ordering Posting of 10 Commandments In Classrooms

As previously reported, on August 20 a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release (full text) directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. He said in part:

From the beginning, the Ten Commandments have been irrevocably intertwined with America’s legal, moral, and historical heritage. Schools not enjoined by ongoing litigation must abide by S.B. 10 and display the Ten Commandments. The woke radicals seeking to erase our nation’s history will be defeated. I will not back down from defending the virtues and values that built this country.

As reported by the Houston Chronicle, there is some confusion as to whether the Attorney General's instructions to comply include two major school districts-- Houston and Austin. On Aug. 19, the Austin District was dismissed as a defendant on the condition that it would be bound by any injunction issued in the case against the remaining defendants. (Full text of Order.) The Houston District, on its motion, was excused from participating in the hearing on the preliminary injunction. In a version of the Attorney General's press release posted on X and on Facebook, neither Austin nor Houston was listed among the districts that Paxton said were excused from complying with SB 10. However, in the version posted on the Attorney General's website, both Austin and Houston were listed as districts affected by the injunction and thus excused from compliance.

The Attorney General's instructions follow an Aug. 21 letter (full text) from the ACLU, Americans United and FFRF sent to superintendents in Texas districts that were not defendants in the lawsuit, saying in part:

Even though your district is not a party to the ongoing lawsuit, all school districts have an independent obligation to respect students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes state law, public-school officials may not comply with S.B. 10. 

The organizations threaten possible litigation against districts that comply with S.B. 10.

Court Enjoins Compliance with Texas Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, Aug. 20, 2025), a Texas federal district court in an unusual 55-page opinion that defies brief summarization issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The court said in part:

... [T]o succeed on the merits under Kennedy, Plaintiffs must show that the practice at issue–permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms–does not “fit within” and is not “consistent with” a broader tradition existing at the time of the founding....

The Court heard from and is very appreciative of the testimony of Dr. Steven Green and Dr. Mark Hall, which was an extensive augmentation of the Court’s 20 years of Methodist Sunday School and theology, political philosophy and constitutional history courses at Texas Lutheran University.  The Court finds Dr. Green’s opinions concerning the intent of the Founders regarding the First Amendment to be more persuasive than Dr. Hall’s testimony....

The court's conclusionary section provides a flavor of the opinion:

Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque. They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government run schools.      

Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer.  That is what they do.  Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: “Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?”  Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues, ... and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.

Notwithstanding the sausage making process of legislation, to avoid religious rancor and legal wrangling the Texas Legislature alternatively could require the posting of:

1. Multiple versions of lessons of behavior from many cultures melded into the American motto of “E pluribus unum,” a concept currently in decline.  For example, the Five Moral Precepts of Buddhism: abstain from killing, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying and intoxicants; or

2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Be kind.  Be respectful.; or

3.  All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: “Share everything.  Play Fair.Don’t hit people. . . . Clean up your own mess.  Don’t take things that aren’t yours.  Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. . . . Live a balanced life. . . . When you go out into the world, . . . hold hands, and stick together.” 

CBS News reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Allows San Antonio Park Development To Move Ahead Over Religious Objections of Lipan-Apache

In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., Aug. 13, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a trial court's refusal to enjoin San Antonio's development plan for a city park.  Plaintiffs are members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church. Certain of their religious ceremonies can take place only at a particular river bend in the park and require the presence of cormorants in the trees there. The development plans involve removing and relocation of trees and modifying bird habitats to deter birds from nesting in highly urbanized areas of the park. Plaintiffs claim that removal of trees and the bird deterrence program violate their religious freedom protected by the 1st Amendment, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Texas Constitution.  In a prior opinion, the 5th Circuit certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Constitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In response, the Texas Supreme Court said that the constitutional provision does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands.

In this week's decision, the majority, refusing to grant an injunction pending further appeal, held that the project did not violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

... [T]he City’s development plan only indirectly impacts Appellants’ religious conduct and expression. Appellants continue to have virtually unlimited access to the Park for religious and cultural purposes. The record shows that, regardless of the rookery management program, no cormorants, due to their migration patterns, inhabit the area for extended periods of time each year....

Appellants did not meet their burden to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the plan constitutes a substantial burden of their religious exercise. Even if they did, that would not change the outcome of this appeal because the City’s plan advances a compelling interest through the least restrictive means—and thus survives strict scrutiny.

The majority also held that the city's program did not violate the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

The parties’ dispute under the Free Exercise Clause centers on which standard of constitutional review applies to the instant case, rational basis or strict scrutiny. Appellants argue that the City’s plans for tree removal and rookery management measures are not neutral and generally applicable and, therefore, must be analyzed under the more exacting strict scrutiny standard. The City contends that its planned Park improvements are neutral and generally applicable and that the more deferential rational basis standard of review applies. Assuming strict scrutiny applies, we conclude that the challenged government action in this case withstands Appellants’ Free Exercise challenge, as illustrated infra in the TRFRA claim analysis.

Judge Higginson dissented in part, saying in part:

Despite my respect for the majority’s analysis, I continue to think that Appellants’ religious exercise is substantially burdened and that the City of San Antonio ... failed to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs in the least restrictive manner.  I would therefore hold that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“TRFRA”) requires the City to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs across two “items of relief” requested in the complaint: the City’s tree-removal (“Item 2”) and anti-nesting (“Item 3”) measures....

Appellants’ testimony shows that services at the riverbend would be “meaningless” without the trees or the cormorants, and that disruption to either will “unravel” the land’s spiritual ecology—a sine qua non for Church members’ religious exercise.  Just as importantly, Appellants’ testimony confirms that these services cannot “be performed anywhere else.”...

To the extent the majority suggests that Appellants can obtain  spiritual fulfilment by exercising their religious beliefs in a manner contrary to their testimony, such reasoning is forbidden.

Secular Officiants Lack Standing to Bring Pre-Enforcement Challenge to Texas Law Barring Them from Performing Weddings

McCutchan v. Nicholson, (ND TX, July 2, 2025), involves a challenge to the Texas statute that sets out who may conduct marriage ceremonies in the state.  The statute limits officiants to judges, Christian clergy, Jewish rabbis or "a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony." The Center for Inquiry that certifies secular marriage celebrants along with one of its certified celebrants brings the challenge, seeking to have secular officiants recognized.  However, the state Attorney General intervened in the case and took the position that the Center for Inquiry qualifies as a "religious" organization as that term is used in the Texas statutes and that its officiants are therefore already permitted to officiate at marriages. The Attorney General argued:

CFI is not secular because it adopts clear, specific, and overt religious beliefs, namely that it “denies that a supernatural source is required for life to have and for people to be guided by values and ethics.” The rejection of God and the supernatural is a religious belief; a truly secular organization would take no stance on the issue....

However, the Court disagreed, concluding that CFI is neither a religious organization nor a religion, saying in part:

At oral argument, the Attorney General discarded the history and tradition of the Texas law, stating that Satanism and Atheism were “religion[s]” and “religious organization[s]” under the Texas Family Code. Interpreting the terms “religion” and “religious organization” to cover Satanism and Atheism not only ignores history and tradition but distorts their plain meaning and risks setting a dangerous precedent.

The court went on, though, to hold that plaintiffs lack standing to bring a pre-enforcement action against the District Attorney (one of the defendants in the case), saying in part:

Individual Plaintiff provides no examples of past enforcement, no public statements regarding enforcement of the statute, and no facts about how the District Attorney could know a secular celebrant violated the law.

This led to the court's final conclusion:

Even if the Court rules on behalf of Individual Plaintiff against Defendant Nicholson, thereby enjoining the County Clerk, his injuries would not be redressed without a favorable judgment against the District Attorney. A ruling in Individual Plaintiff’s favor, thus, would not amount to “relief that directly redresses the injury suffered.”... Accordingly, the Court rules that Individual Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Because individual members of CFI lack standing, so does the organization.

Another Suit Challenges Texas Law Mandating 10 Commandments in Every Classroom

Suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 10 which requires a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom. The complaint (full text) in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 7/2/2025), alleges in part:

S.B. 10 is not neutral with respect to religion. By design, it expressly requires the display of religious scripture—the Ten Commandments—in every public-school classroom. It also requires that schools post a specific, state-approved version of that scripture that is associated with certain Protestant faiths, taking sides on theological questions regarding the correct content and meaning of the Ten Commandments and enshrining in state law an official denominational preference....

As a result of the displays mandated by S.B. 10, students who do not subscribe to the state’s official version of the Ten Commandments or whose faith tenets and values are otherwise contradicted by the displays—including the minor-child Plaintiffs—will be pressured into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of this religious scripture....

Houston Public Media reports on the lawsuit. This is the second lawsuit that has been filed challenging the constitutionality of SB 10. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges Texas Requirement for 10 Commandments in Classrooms

Suit was filed last week in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted Texas law that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The complaint (full text) in Alexander v. Morath, (ND TX, filed 6/24/2025) alleges in part:

Senate Bill 10 ... is not religiously neutral, as it mandates the display of a specific version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. This requirement inherently takes a theological stance on the correct content and meaning of the scripture....

The version mandated by S.B. 10 mostly aligns with a Protestant rendition but does not match any version found in the Jewish tradition, notably omitting key language and context from the Torah. Furthermore, it does not match the version followed by most Catholics, as it includes a prohibition against "graven images" which could be offensive given the role of iconography in the Catholic faith....

84. As a result of the Ten Commandments displays mandated by S.B. 10, Texas students—including minor-child Plaintiffs—will be unconstitutionally coerced into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture, and they will be pressured to suppress their personal religious beliefs and practices, especially in school, to avoid the potential disfavor, reproach, and/or disapproval of school officials and/or their peers. ...

85. In addition, by mandating that one version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in public educational institutions and prescribing an official religious text for school children to venerate, S.B. 10 adopts an official position on religious matters, violating the Establishment Clause’s prohibition against taking sides in questions over theological doctrine and violating the “clearest command” of the Establishment Clause that “one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982).

86. There is no longstanding historical practice or tradition of prominently and permanently displaying any version of the Ten Commandments in American public-school classrooms. On the contrary, the Supreme Court unambiguously held in Stone that such a practice is proscribed by the Constitution.

Texas Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Texas Enacts Requirement That Schools Offer Released-Time Programs

On June 20, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed SB 1049 (full text) which requires all public and charter schools to permit students to attend released-time religious classes for up to five hours per week. The student must assume responsibility for any school assignments issued during his attendance at religious classes. ADF issued a press release endorsing the new law.

Texas Enacts Law Requiring Ten Commandments In Every Classroom

The Texas legislature has passed, and on June 20 Governor Gregg Abbott signed, SB10 (full text) which requires that:

a public elementary or secondary school shall display in a conspicuous place in each classroom of the school adurable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments...

The law requires that a poster or framed copy at least 16x20 in size include only the text of the Ten Commandments set out in the law. It must be posted "in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom...."

Texas Tribune reports on the new law. A similar Louisiana law was just found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which also has jurisdiction over Texas. (See prior posting.)

Texas Supreme Court Interprets Religious Services Clause of State Consitution

As previously reported, in a suit by members of the Lipan Apache tribe challenging improvements to a park that destroyed  their ability to use a sacred site for certain religious ceremonies, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Consitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In Perez v. City of San Antonio,(TX Sup. Ct., June 13, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court in an 8-1 opinion said in part:

When the Texas Religious Services Clause applies, its force is absolute and categorical, meaning it forbids governmental prohibitions and limitations on religious services regardless of the government’s interest in that limitation or how tailored the limitation is to that interest, but the scope of the clause’s applicability is not unlimited, and it does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands. We express no opinion on whether the Free Exercise Clause or the Texas RFRA protect the religious liberties Perez asserts, and we leave it to the federal courts to apply our answer in the underlying case.

Justice Sullivan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

With deepest respect for my esteemed friends on the Fifth Circuit and on our Court, I would decline this expansive invitation to issue an advisory opinion on a “new provision” of our Bill of Rights that “[n]o Texas court has construed.”

Texas Supreme Court: AG May Begin Proceedings to Close Down Catholic Refugee Agency for Harboring Illegal Migrants

In Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc., (TX Sup. Ct., May 30, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court held that a state trial court was in error in refusing to allow the state Attorney General to file a quo warranto action as a first step in his attempt to revoke the corporate charter of a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso. The Attorney General claims that the agency is sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. The Supreme Court observed:

Bound up in the dispute are a host of serious questions: What kind of conduct constitutes unlawfully harboring illegal aliens?  Has Annunciation House engaged in such conduct?  Under what conditions may the attorney general demand access to Annunciation House’s records?  Can harboring illegal aliens provide a valid basis for the attorney general to file a quo warranto action?  Does Texas law that protects religious liberty forbid the attorney general from proceeding against Annunciation House under these circumstances?  And more still.

Ordinarily, before this Court addresses such significant issues, the parties would have developed a full record.... This case, however, comes to the Court as a direct appeal because, very early in the litigation, the trial court held that several Texas statutes are unconstitutional.  We accordingly must address this dispute far earlier than we typically would. 

Among other defenses, Annunciation House invoked the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Rejecting that defense, the Supreme Court said in part:

... [T]he relevant government action for purposes of applying RFRA here is not the charter revocation that may or may not arrive, but only the filing of the quo warranto information.  Engaging in litigation is generally not itself the sort of burden that RFRA forecloses— RFRA purposefully provides a tool to be deployed within litigation.  In this case, it has been invoked as an affirmative defense focusing not on the mere existence of the litigation but on a potential end result of that litigation.  Undoubtedly, RFRA can be powerful however it is deployed, and its potency often may be felt quite early.  But it is not a tool to convert a proceeding focused on whether litigation may even commence into one that reaches and resolves ultimate issues.  Were we to say more about RFRA at this stage, we would have to reach issues that go well beyond the narrow question of the attorney general’s authority to file a quo warranto counterclaim—and to do so without the benefit of a sufficiently developed record or even the refining that ordinarily comes through the usual litigation and appellate process.

Here are links to the pleadings and numerous amicus briefs filed in the case. Here is a link to video of oral arguments in the case. El Paso Times reports on the decision.

Texas Passes 3 Bills Promoting Religion in Public Schools

In addition to the much-publicized Ten Commandments bill (see prior posting), the Texas legislature this week gave final passage to three other bills relating to religion in public schools:

S.B. 11 (full text) (legislative history) creates an elaborate structure that school districts may adopt to provide for a daily period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text in each school. The daily ceremony is to be open to both students and employees but must be outside the hearing of those who are not participants. Also, it may not be a substitute for instructional time. To participate, a student's parent must sign a consent form that includes a waiver of a right to bring an Establishment Clause claim to challenge the prayer/ Bible reading policy. For an employee to participate in the daily sessions, they must sign a similar consent and waiver. Districts may not broadcast the prayer or Bible reading over the school's public address system.

SB 965 (full text) (legislative history) provides:

The right of an employee of a school district ... to engage in religious speech or prayer while on duty may not be infringed on by the district or school or another state governmental entity, unless the infringement is: (1) necessary to further a compelling state interest; and (2) narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means to achieve that compelling state interest.

SB 1049 (full text) (legislative history) requires all public schools to adopt policies that provide for students, at their parents' request, to attend for 1 to 5 hours per week off-premises released time programs operated by private entities and which offer religious instruction. Under the mandated policy, students remain responsible for any schoolwork issued during the student's absence.

Texas Legislature Passes Bill to Require Ten Commandments in Every Classroom

The Texas legislature this week gave final approval to SB10 (full text) which requires public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The bill sets out the language of the version of the Ten Commandments that must be used. Schools must accept privately donated posters or framed copies that meet the requirements of the Act and may also use school district funds to buy posters or copies. Three civil liberties groups yesterday announced that they will sue Texas to challenge the new law once it is signed by Governor Gregg Abbott.

New York County Clerk Refuses to File Texas Default Judgment Against Doctor Who Sent Abortion Pills to Texas Woman

New York state's Shield Law (EXECUTIVE 837-x) provides in part:

No state or local government employee ... shall cooperate with ... any out-of-state individual or out-of-state agency or department regarding any legally protected health activity in this state, or otherwise expend or use time, moneys, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for any legally protected health activity occurring in this state... 

Invoking this provision, an Ulster, New York County Clerk yesterday refused a request by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to enforce in New York a Texas default civil judgment against a New York physician charged with providing abortion medication to a woman in Texas. Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck's statement (full text) reads in part:

Today, I informed Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton that the Ulster County Clerk’s Office will not be filing a summary judgment against a New Paltz physician who is facing charges in Texas for providing mifepristone via telehealth to a Texas resident. The judgment in question seeks a civil penalty exceeding $100,000 due to the doctor’s failure to appear in court. 

As the Acting Ulster County Clerk, I hold my responsibilities and the oath I have taken in the highest regard. In accordance with the New York State Shield Law, I have refused this filing and will refuse any similar filings that may come to our office...

The case will provide an interesting test of the extent of exceptions to the federal Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause which generally requires one state to enforce judgments of another state's courts.

Texas Tribune Reports on these developments.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Arguments on State Closure of Catholic Agency Serving Migrants

On January 13, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc. (Links to documents and briefs in the case.) At issue is an attempt by the Texas Attorney General to shut down Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso. The Attorney General claims that the agency is sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. A Texas state trial court held that Texas statutes which bar harboring migrants to induce them to stay illegally in the U.S. are pre-empted by federal law and cannot be used as the basis for a quo warranto action to revoke the agency's registration to operate in Texas. Also at issue is the state's subpoena for records of Annunciation House. (See prior posting.) Annunciation House contends that the attempt to close it down violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Reform Austin reports on the oral arguments.

HIPPA Rule Barring Reporting of Legal Abortions to Out-of-State Enforcement Authorities Is Preliminarily Enjoined

In April of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services adopted new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. The rules prohibit doctors, clinics and insurance companies from disclosing information about patients' reproductive health care that is lawful where provided when the information is sought by the patient's home state for the purpose of an investigation that may lead to civil or criminal liability there. (See prior posting.) In Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, Dec. 22, 2024), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the rule against the physician and the clinic that are plaintiffs in the suit. The court held that the HHS rule violates a provision of HIPPA protecting state rules requiring reporting of child abuse. The court said in part:

Congress mandated that HIPPA cannot be "construed to invalidate or limit the authority, power, or procedures established under any law providing for the reporting of disease or injury, child abuse, birth, or death, public health surveillance, or public health investigation or intervention." ...

Plaintiffs argue that the 2024 Rule "unlawfully limits disclosures about child abuse" to states like Texas..... They aver HHS limits such disclosures by curtailing doctors' ability to freely report suspected "child abuse" and instead forces them into a "labyrinth of criteria" to determine what can and cannot be disclosed....

The 2024 Rule "limits" practitioners from reporting "child abuse" in several ways. It requires "covered entities" to determine whether the relevant "reproductive healthcare" was "lawful" under the circumstances it was acquired.... 

But, of course, many "covered entities" are not prepared or equipped to make nuanced legal judgments....

Again, even if a more nuanced reading of the 2024 Rule allowed child-abuse reporting to Texas CPS, a nonlawyer licensed physician is not equipped to navigate these intersecting legal labyrinths. And it is precisely such restraints and impediments that Congress forbade when it comes to child-abuse reporting.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Interpretation of "Religious Service Protections" Constitutional Amendment

Last Wednesday, The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Perez v. City of San Antonio. The court is being asked to respond to a certified question from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case in which members of the Lipan Apache Native American Church claim that improvements to a park that include tree removal and rookery management destroy their ability to use a sacred site in the park for certain religious ceremonies. The certified question involves interpretation of a provision in the Texas state Constitution that was adopted in response to restrictions imposed during the Covid pandemic.  The constitutional provision prohibits the state and localities from placing limits on religious services, without specifying whether the ban applies even in cases of a compelling governmental interest in doing so. (See prior posting.) The certified question reads:

Does the “Religious Service Protections” provision of the Constitution of the State of Texas—as expressed in Article 1, Section 6-a—impose a categorical bar on any limitation of any religious service, regardless of the sort of limitation and the government’s interest in that limitation?

The Texas Supreme Court has links to pleadings and briefs (including amicus briefs) filed in the case. Oral argument for appellants was presented by a faculty member from the University of Texas College of Law, Law and Religion Clinic. Religion News Service reports on the oral arguments.

Texas AG Sues Church-Run Homeless Center Alleging It Has Become a Public Nuisance

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week filed a lawsuit in state court against a church-run homeless center that receives over $1 million in funding from the city of Austin. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Sunrise Community Church, Inc. d/b/a Sunrise Homeless Navigation Center, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/26/2024), alleges that the homeless shelter's operations constitute a statutory common nuisance and a common law public nuisance. The complaint says in part:

In South Austin, a once peaceful neighborhood has been transformed by homeless drug addicts, convicted criminals, and registered sex offenders. These people do drugs in sight of children, publicly fornicate next to an elementary school, menace residents with machetes, urinate and defecate on public grounds, and generally terrorize the surrounding community....

The state asks for injunctions closing the homeless center for one year.  It also asks that the center be prohibited from operating within 1,000 feet of any school playground or youth center and from operating in any location "in a manner that frequently attracts patrons whose conduct violates the rights of neighborhood residents, school children, businesses, and the general public to peacefully use and enjoy the surrounding area."

Attorney General Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Austin American- Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

Texas State Board of Education Adopts Suggested Curriculum That Includes Numerous Biblical References

As reported by KERA News:

The Texas State Board of Education today gave final approval to a controversial new elementary curriculum that features numerous Biblical references, from stories about King Solomon to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

The board voted 8 to 7 in favor of the state-developed “Bluebonnet Learning” English and language arts materials, which critics say privilege Christianity over other religions....

Schools aren’t required to use Bluebonnet Learning, but the state will offer financial incentives to districts that do....

All the English Language Arts and Reading Instructional Materials are posted on the Board's website. The Texas Freedom Network Education Fund has posted an analysis of the materials entitled Turning Texas Public Schools Into Sunday Schools? A press release supporting the Board's adoption of the curriculum was issued by Texas Values.

Texas Top Court Gives New Trial to Death Row Inmate Because of Trial Judge's Antisemitism

 In Ex Parte Halprin, (TX Ct. Crim. App., Nov. 6, 2024), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a 6-3 decision granted a new trial to one of the so-called Texas Seven prison escapees who had been sentenced to death for murdering a police officer during the robbery of a sporting goods store shortly after their escape. The court concluded that the trial judge, Vickers Cunningham, was biased against Halprin because Halprin is Jewish.  The court said in part:

The evidence adduced in these habeas proceedings concerning Halprin’s judicial bias claim consists primarily of anti-Semitic statements attributed to Cunningham that, according to the witnesses, he made in generally private or semi-private settings rather than from the bench in open court or in chambers....

The uncontradicted evidence supports a finding that Cunningham formed an opinion about Halprin that derived from an extrajudicial factor—Cunningham’s poisonous anti-Semitism. Cunningham’s references to Halprin are not to “the fucking [murderer]” or “the filthy [criminal]” or “the [murderer] Halprin,” which might be fairly said to derive from the evidence presented at Halprin’s capital murder trial. Rather, Cunningham’s derogatory references to Halprin are expressly tied to Halprin’s Jewish identity.

Judge Richardson, joined by Judges Newell and Walker filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

This is not a case in which the action of a trial judge may just “look bad.” This is not a case in which there is merely the “appearance of impropriety.” This is a case where a person’s lifelong hatred and prejudice against Jews made him unfit to preside over this case. And that toxic viewpoint runs counter to our concept of the Rule of Law because “[o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.”

Thus, no precedent, rule, technicality, or excuse can justify allowing such a demonstrably biased person to constitutionally stand in judgment over a member of a class of people the judge espouses to hate. It violates our fundamental sense of fair play and the Supreme Court’s motto “Equal Justice Under Law” beneath which our precedent arises.

Judge Yeary filed a concurring opinion saying that the majority reached the correct result but used the wrong standard to reach it.  He said in part: 

... [T]he question is “not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in [the challenged judge’s] position is ‘likely’ to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional ‘potential for bias.’”

Presiding Judge Keller, joined by Judges Keel and Slaughter filed a dissenting opinion saying in part:

The Court misunderstands the law regarding disqualification of a judge for bias.  It grants Applicant relief on the basis of the trial judge’s personal views and out-of-court comments about Applicant’s religion.  But under Supreme Court precedent, in order for a judge who holds derogatory views about a defendant’s religion to be disqualified, there must be a showing that the judge’s conduct in the criminal proceedings was influenced by his derogatory views.  What a judge does can violate the Constitution.  What he thinks cannot.  Nothing in the record on habeas or at trial shows, or even suggests, that the trial judge’s views influenced how he conducted the criminal proceedings in this case.

Texas Public Radio and AP report on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Challenges HIPPA Rules Barring Reporting of Out-of-State Abortions

As previously reported, in April of this year the Department of Health and Human Services issued new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. Yesterday, suit was filed in a Texas federal district court challenging the rules.  The complaint (full text) in Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, filed 10/21/2024), alleges that the new privacy rules cover not only abortion, but also hormone and drug interventions for gender dysphoria and surgical procedures on an individual's reproductive system. The complaint alleges in part:

5. ... [T]he 2024 Rule purports to limit the circumstances when a HIPAA-covered entity can share information with government agencies, such as state child-welfare agencies and law enforcement agencies, both state and federal.  

6. HIPAA-covered entities that share information in contravention of HHS’s regulations incur criminal liability. 

7. Yet the HIPAA statute explicitly preserves government authority to investigate and to require disclosures concerning abuse. 

8. The 2024 Rule lacks statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious. As such, the Court should vacate and set aside the Rule and preliminarily and permanently enjoin its enforcement....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.