A lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging Bexar County’s immigration legal services program is now unfolding simultaneously in three courts — a local district court, the Austin-based 15th Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court — as state and county attorneys fight over whether the case will survive long enough for any judge to rule on its constitutionality.
The dispute centers on more than $556,000 in county funding for legal representation for immigrants facing deportation hearings through the nonprofit American Gateways. While the lawsuit originally focused on whether the program violates the Texas Constitution’s “Gift Clause,” the immediate legal fight has shifted to a narrower question: whether courts should intervene before the program’s funding expires, potentially making the case moot.
How the case started
Paxton filed the lawsuit at the beginning of February seeking to temporarily block the release of funding for the county’s Immigration Legal Services Fund, which contracts with the nonprofit American Gateways to provide legal assistance to low-income residents facing federal deportation proceedings. The program had been in operation since 2024 and was set to expire on Feb 28.
The state argued the program violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause, which prohibits governments from giving public money to private parties unless the spending serves a clear public purpose and remains under government control.
County officials have defended the program as a lawful use of public funds, saying it helps residents navigate complex immigration proceedings and serves a broader public benefit.
Officials cited a decision in a November separate lawsuit where the 15th Court of Appeals ruled against Paxton in favor of Harris County over its immigration legal service fund, which had been in operation since 2020.
In the ruling, the 15th Court of Appeals declined to block a nearly identical immigrant legal services program in Harris County, writing that Texas courts have long recognized providing legal counsel to indigent people as a public service. The court found the state had not shown evidence that the program harmed residents or violated the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause.
District court ruling
In its first appearance in the 45th Civil District Court on Feb 20, the merits of the gift clause violation and the temporary restraining order on release of the funds were not considered. Bexar County had asked the trial court instead to require the attorney general’s office to prove it had the authority to bring the lawsuit.
District Judge Mary Lou Alvarez granted that request, ultimately ruling the attorney general had not identified any constitutional or statutory provision allowing the office to sue the county over its discretionary spending decisions.
The order barred Paxton’s office from representing the state in the case, but did not outright dismiss the lawsuit. Instead, the court allowed time for another attorney to appear on behalf of the state before the pleadings would be struck with a hearing set for Feb. 27, one day before the expiration of the program.
Following the trial court’s ruling, the state filed a petition for writ of mandamus — a form of emergency relief that requests immediate intervention from a higher court, the Austin-based 15th Court of Appeals on Feb. 23.
Appeal to the 15th Court of Appeals
In its appeal, the state argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy through a normal appeal.
The state asked the appellate court to overturn the trial judge’s order and allow the attorney general to continue representing Texas in the lawsuit. While simultaneously asking the court to temporarily block Bexar County from paying the remaining funds under the program.
In a Feb. 25 order, the appeals court granted that request in part and denied it in part.
The court temporarily paused the trial court’s ruling that barred the attorney general from appearing in the case, allowing Paxton’s office to continue representing the state while the appeal is considered while the mandamus petition was considered.
But the court declined to stop the county from distributing the remaining funds. In doing so, the court cited their ruling in the case involving Harris County’s immigrant legal services program last year.
The appeals court also directed Bexar County to file a response to the state’s petition by March 11. In its response, Bexar County attorneys argued the state’s appeal is premature because the trial court never actually ruled on the request for a temporary restraining order on the funding.
Instead, the court first considered the county’s motion challenging the attorney general’s authority to bring the lawsuit. Because no decision was made on the TRO, the county argued there was no ruling for the appeals court to review.
Following the response the appeals court may now rule on the mandamus petition or request additional briefings before making a decision.
If the court ultimately grants the petition, the case would likely return to district court with the attorney general allowed to continue representing the state. If the court denies the request, the trial court’s earlier ruling barring the attorney general from the case could take effect again.
While the appeals court considers the dispute, the state has also taken the case to the Texas Supreme Court, filing a separate mandamus petition seeking emergency relief.
Case reaches Texas Supreme Court
After the appeals court declined to block the payment, the state filed the petition with the Texas Supreme Court on Feb. 27, asking the state’s highest court to intervene.
In that filing, the attorney general’s office argued the most urgent issue is not whether the program violates the Gift Clause, but whether any court will have the opportunity to decide that question at all.
The state says the final $556,181 payment under the program could be disbursed soon. If the money is released, the state argues, the case would become moot because courts could no longer stop the spending.
“Once this payment is made, there is nothing left to enjoin and this case will be over,” the state wrote in its filing.
In earlier filings, the county told the court that while the program’s contract expired Feb. 28, the final payment depends on an invoice submitted by the vendor and reviewed by the county auditor before funds are released. County officials have said any remaining payments under the contract with American Gateways would be for legal services that were already provided before the program expired.
The state argues that uncertainty over when the payment will occur is precisely the problem.
In its Supreme Court filing, the attorney general’s office said the county has been “strategically coy” about when the final payment will be made, warning that the funds could be distributed at any time.
If that happens, the state argues, the courts would lose jurisdiction because the lawsuit seeks only to stop the spending — not to recover the money after it has been paid.
Asked this week whether the funds had already been distributed, a spokesperson for the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office said they did not have information to share at this time.
For now, the dispute over the timing of that payment sits at the center of the case. If the money is released before courts rule on the underlying legal questions, the state argues, the lawsuit could effectively end without any court ruling on the original merits of the suit.
A hearing in the district court case is scheduled for March 20 in Bexar County on the county’s plea to the jurisdiction, a legal motion asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit entirely on the grounds that it lacks authority to hear it.
At the time of publication, the 15th Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court have yet to rule on the state’s mandamus petitions. Until those courts act, the lawsuit over Bexar County’s immigration legal services fund remains pending in all three courts.
