Entrenching the Texas Attorney General’s Quo Warranto Power: Commentary on Paxton v. Annunciation House

Entrenching the Texas Attorney General’s Quo Warranto Power and Limiting Early RFRA & Fourth Amendment Challenges: Commentary on Paxton v. Annunciation House

I. Introduction

This case sits at the intersection of corporate law, immigration-related enforcement, and religious liberty. The Supreme Court of Texas, in Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc., addresses whether the Attorney General (AG) may:

  • invoke the ancient remedy of quo warranto to seek revocation of a religious nonprofit’s corporate charter based on alleged criminal “alien harboring,” and
  • demand immediate access to the nonprofit’s internal records under Texas Business Organizations Code §§ 12.151–.152.

Annunciation House is a long-established Catholic-affiliated shelter in El Paso serving migrants and others in need. The Texas Attorney General served a records “Request to Examine,” backed by statutory threats of charter forfeiture and criminal penalties for noncompliance. When Annunciation House sought judicial relief, the AG responded with a proposed counterclaim “in the nature of quo warranto,” alleging systematic “illegal alien harboring” and “stash house” operation, and seeking to shut the organization down.

The trial court went extremely far, very early. It:

  • declared several statutes unconstitutional (including the AG’s records-inspection statute),
  • held that the AG lacked authority to bring quo warranto here,
  • held the state alien-harboring statutes preempted and vague,
  • found a violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and
  • enjoined the AG from filing quo warranto and from issuing future records requests, effectively placing Annunciation House under a two-year protective bubble controlled by that district court.

Because these rulings turned on constitutional holdings, the AG took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas. The high court reverses almost everything the trial court did, but in a deliberately narrow way: it holds primarily that the AG is constitutionally authorized to file his proposed quo warranto action and that the statutory records-inspection scheme is not facially unconstitutional. It emphatically does not decide whether Annunciation House actually violated any law or whether its charter should ultimately be forfeited.

The opinion is significant for at least four reasons:

  1. It constitutionalizes a strong, historically grounded view of the Texas Attorney General’s discretion to use quo warranto against private corporations, including based on alleged criminal acts, and announces a constitutional clear-statement rule limiting legislative power to restrict that authority.
  2. It articulates a deferential, pleadings-based standard for granting the AG “leave to file” an information in the nature of quo warranto, sharply limiting trial courts’ ability to front-load merits disputes at that threshold stage.
  3. It interprets the state alien-harboring statute in line with the Fifth Circuit’s Cruz v. Abbott, reaffirming that mere provision of shelter is not “harboring,” but holding that the AG’s allegations, taken as true, do state a harboring theory.
  4. It construes the AG’s corporate records-inspection statute to include an opportunity for precompliance review, avoiding a Patel-style Fourth Amendment facial invalidation and vacating a sweeping injunction against future requests.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Procedural Posture and Issues

The case reached the Supreme Court of Texas as a direct appeal from a district court’s orders that:

  • granted Annunciation House summary judgment and broad injunctive relief, and
  • denied the AG leave to file a quo warranto counterclaim and denied the AG’s own requested injunction shutting down the shelters.

Under Texas Government Code § 22.001(c), a direct appeal lies when a trial court grants or denies an injunction “on the ground of the constitutionality” of a statute. The Court thus confronted the case very early—before any trial or full merits development.

The Court framed five trial-court holdings for review:

  1. Business Organizations Code § 11.301(a)(5) “supplants” the AG’s quo warranto authority under Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 66.
  2. The AG failed to allege a violation of Penal Code § 20.05(a)(2) or § 20.07(a)(1) (the alien-harboring and “stash house” provisions).
  3. Those Penal Code provisions are preempted by federal law or unconstitutionally vague as applied here.
  4. The AG’s requested injunction and proposed quo warranto action violate the Texas RFRA.
  5. Business Organizations Code §§ 12.151–.152 (AG’s records-inspection power) are facially unconstitutional for lack of precompliance review.

B. Core Holdings

The Supreme Court holds:

  • Quo warranto authority. The Attorney General has a constitutionally entrenched power under Tex. Const. art. IV, § 22 to pursue quo warranto against private corporations for misuse or abuse of their charters, including based on alleged criminal violations, unless the Legislature “expressly” directs otherwise. Neither Business Organizations Code § 11.301 nor Chapter 66 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code clearly withdraws that power here.
  • Standard for “leave to file.” The threshold decision whether to grant the AG “leave” to file a quo warranto information is a legal inquiry: do the pleadings state a valid cause of action within the statutory and constitutional framework, assuming the allegations to be true? They need not be supported by evidence at that stage. The AG’s allegations against Annunciation House meet that “probable ground” standard.
  • Alien-harboring predicate.
    • The Court largely endorses the Fifth Circuit’s Cruz v. Abbott construction: “harboring” requires covertness and active shielding from detection, not mere provision of shelter or services.
    • The AG’s petition, however, goes beyond mere shelter and (for present purposes) sufficiently alleges deliberate shielding from detection (e.g., refusing law enforcement access to the shelters to protect migrants from detection), and thus states a plausible violation of Penal Code § 20.05(a)(2)/§ 20.07(a)(1).
    • The state alien-harboring statute is not field- or conflict-preempted by federal immigration law and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied via quo warranto here.
  • RFRA. RFRA cannot be used at this threshold “leave-to-file” stage to bar the AG from even initiating a quo warranto action. RFRA issues turn on fact-intensive balancing and the specific burdens imposed; it is premature to resolve them before any record has been developed. The Court does not decide RFRA’s eventual application on the merits.
  • Records-inspection statute and Fourth Amendment.
    • The records-inspection provisions (§§ 12.151–.152) are not facially unconstitutional under City of Los Angeles v. Patel so long as they are construed to allow precompliance judicial review—e.g., via protective orders under Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.6(e).
    • The Court reads “immediately permit” in § 12.152 not as foreclosing any opportunity for precompliance review before sanctions but as mandating expedited compliance consistent with that background procedural right.
  • “Save Chick-fil-A” law. There is no evidentiary basis in this record to conclude that the AG targeted Annunciation House “wholly or partly” because of its religious affiliation, so Government Code § 2400.002 could not justify the injunction.
  • Injunctions vacated / remand.
    • The trial court’s permanent injunction against future records requests is vacated.
    • The denial of the AG’s requested injunction to shut down Annunciation House is reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court’s holdings; the Supreme Court expresses no view on whether such an injunction should issue.
    • The case returns to the district court for ordinary litigation, with the AG allowed to file his quo warranto counterclaim.

Throughout, the Court stresses what it is not deciding: whether Annunciation House actually committed any crime; whether its charter should be forfeited; whether RFRA ultimately bars such forfeiture; or even how far the litigation will proceed. The decision is fundamentally about who may litigate what, and when, not about the ultimate substantive liability of the nonprofit.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Procedural Posture and the Court’s Self-Conscious Narrowness

Two structural aspects shape the Court’s reasoning:

  1. Direct appeal at an early stage. Because the case comes up on direct appeal from early constitutional rulings, the Supreme Court is wary of resolving merits-laden questions without a trial record or intermediate appellate refinement. This drives the Court’s insistence on confining itself to:
    • the AG’s authority to file,
    • the legal standard for leave,
    • facial constitutional questions, and
    • a limited as-applied preemption/vagueness analysis strictly necessary to decide whether the quo warranto pleading is viable.
  2. Separation of powers and presumption of regularity. The Court is plainly uncomfortable with a trial court that:
    • preemptively barred a constitutional officer from even filing a lawsuit within his core power, and
    • openly accused that officer of political harassment and misuse of law.
    The opinion repeatedly reminds lower courts that the AG, like the judiciary, is entitled to a “presumption of regularity, good faith, and legality” and warns that courts may not treat normal exercises of AG discretion as presumptively abusive.

B. Quo Warranto: History, Constitutionalization, and Statutory Structure

1. Common-law and English background

The Court begins with a long historical discussion—unusual in modern state-court opinions—tracing quo warranto from 13th-century England under Edward I through Blackstone, to American corporate law, and then to Texas. Key historical points:

  • Original function. Quo warranto (“by what warrant”) originated as a royal tool to call barons and corporate entities to justify their exercise of franchises and special privileges. Abuse, “misuser,” or “nonuser” of such grants could justify forfeiture.
  • Evolution into civil “information in the nature of quo warranto.” Over time, the criminal-rooted royal writ evolved into a purely civil “information” filed by the Attorney General in the King’s Bench, but its substantive function remained the same—testing unlawful assumption or misuse of governmental franchises, including corporate charters.
  • American adoption. In the early Republic, courts like Justice Story’s in Terrett v. Taylor and Chief Justice Taney’s in Bank of Augusta v. Earle recognized that corporate charters could be forfeited by quo warranto for “misuser” or “nonuser.” Violations of law constituted breach of the conditions of incorporation.

2. Texas adoption and constitutionalization

Texas formally adopted the English common law in 1840, expressly including quo warranto. The Legislature soon acknowledged and used the remedy, and by the 1876 Constitution, Texas went further and constitutionalized the Attorney General’s role in this space. The relevant constitutional text (art. IV, § 22) provides that the AG:

  • “shall especially inquire into the charter rights of all private corporations,”
  • “[and] take such action in the courts as may be proper and necessary to prevent any private corporation from exercising any power . . . not authorized by law,” and
  • “shall, whenever sufficient cause exists, seek a judicial forfeiture of such charters, unless otherwise expressly directed by law.”

Three foundational points flow from this text and its history:

  1. Quo warranto is constitutionally grounded. The “inquire into” and “seek a judicial forfeiture” duties are understood—by contemporaneous legislation and long-standing precedent—to refer specifically to quo warranto-type actions regarding corporate charters.
  2. Legislative limits require an express, clear statement. The phrase “unless otherwise expressly directed by law” is read as a built-in clear-statement rule: the Legislature may alter or withdraw particular applications of the AG’s quo warranto power only if it does so explicitly, not by implication or silence.
  3. “Sufficient cause” resides in the AG’s discretion, within existing law. Relying on State v. Teachers Annuity Life Insurance Co. (writ refused, making it binding precedent) and on general doctrines of AG discretion (e.g., Terrazas v. Ramirez, Webster), the Court reaffirms that:
    • the AG has independent authority to determine when “sufficient cause exists” to seek forfeiture, so long as he does not contravene an express statutory prohibition; and
    • this discretion is broad and not to be second-guessed lightly by the judiciary.

3. Chapter 66 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code

The Legislature codified and elaborated quo warranto procedure in an 1879 statute, now Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 66. The relevant subsections (carried forward almost verbatim) authorize an action:

  • when “a corporation does or omits an act that requires a surrender or causes a forfeiture of its rights and privileges,” or
  • when “a corporation exercises power not granted by law.”

The statute requires only that there be a “probable ground for the proceeding” for a district court to grant leave to file. The Supreme Court interprets this as consistent with art. IV, § 22 rather than a limitation on it—especially because art. IV, § 22 already provides the specific limitation (“unless otherwise expressly directed by law”).

C. Does the Constitution or Statutes Forbid Criminal Predicates for Quo Warranto?

1. Rejecting a narrow reading of art. IV, § 22

Annunciation House argued that the AG’s constitutional quo warranto power under art. IV, § 22 is limited to cases involving economic exactions—i.e., “demanding or collecting” unauthorized “taxes, tolls, freight or wharfage”—and does not extend to criminal acts. The Court rejects this as textually unsound.

Using the “series-qualifier” canon, the Court holds that art. IV, § 22 refers separately to:

  • “exercising any power . . . not authorized by law,” and
  • “demanding or collecting any species of taxes, tolls, freight, or wharfage not authorized by law.”

The power clause is not limited by the tolls/taxes clause. Violating a criminal statute necessarily entails exercising a power “not authorized by law”; nothing in the text excludes criminal conduct. The Court notes that other state high courts have long held criminal violations may serve as grounds for corporate charter forfeiture via quo warranto.

2. “Sufficient cause” and legislative role

Annunciation House also argued that only the Legislature can define what counts as “sufficient cause” to seek forfeiture, so criminal predicates must be specifically enumerated. The Court instead adopts the Teachers Annuity approach: the Legislature may:

  • require quo warranto for particular acts, or
  • expressly forbid quo warranto in specified contexts,

but otherwise the AG decides whether existing law (criminal or civil) supplies “sufficient cause” to seek forfeiture. The key constraint is that any restriction on that discretion must be “expressly directed by law” to satisfy art. IV, § 22.

3. Do § 11.301 and Chapter 66 “supplant” or limit quo warranto?

On this point, the Court invokes both the constitutional clear-statement rule and standard statutory-interpretation canons.

  • Business Organizations Code § 11.301(a)(5).
    • This provision allows winding up and termination of a filing entity’s existence when:
      • the entity or its high managerial agent has been convicted of a felony,
      • engaged in a persistent course of felonious conduct, and
      • termination is necessary to prevent future similar felonies.
    • The trial court read this as supplanting quo warranto whenever felonious conduct is involved, on the theory that the Legislature chose felony convictions, not mere allegations, as a precondition for charter termination.
    • The Supreme Court finds no textual support for this. Section 11.301:
      • never mentions quo warranto or art. IV, § 22,
      • contains no language of exclusivity, and
      • is part of a broader scheme focused on the Secretary of State’s role in termination procedures.
    • Given the constitutional requirement of an express direction to limit the AG’s quo warranto power, mere silence or structural inference is insufficient. Nor would § 11.301 even satisfy the more modest default rule that statutes don’t abrogate common law “unless they do so with clarity.”
  • Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 66.001.
    • Annunciation House argued that because § 66.001 enumerates specific grounds for quo warranto, unlisted grounds (like alien-harboring crimes) must be excluded (an expressio unius argument).
    • The Court notes that one listed ground is when a corporation “exercises power not granted by law”—language essentially identical to art. IV, § 22. Given that the constitutional phrase embraces at least some criminal violations, so must the parallel statutory phrase.
    • Again, the Constitution demands an express limitation; a negative implication from a list is insufficient to override that command.

Result: criminal acts are not categorically excluded as predicates for quo warranto; nor have § 11.301 or Chapter 66 “expressly” withdrawn the AG’s power to seek charter forfeiture based on alleged alien-harboring violations.

D. The Standard for Granting Leave to File Quo Warranto

The Court then tackles a more procedural, but practically crucial, question: what exactly must the AG show to obtain “leave” from the district court to file an information in the nature of quo warranto?

  • Not an evidentiary mini-trial. Drawing on 19th-century Texas cases (Hunnicutt, Davis) and modern courts of appeals decisions (e.g., State v. City of Double Horn), the Court holds that:
    • leave-to-file is assessed under a pleading standard—assuming the facts alleged are true, do they state a cause of action within the statutory and constitutional framework?
    • no evidence or verification is required at that stage; the AG’s unsworn statement can suffice to authorize filing (though evidence will eventually be required to prevail on the merits).
    • leave can be denied if, on the face of the petition:
      • the alleged conduct is not actually prohibited by the law invoked,
      • the statute is clearly inapplicable or invalid (e.g., preempted), or
      • some clear venue or legal bar exists.
  • Relationship to modern motion practice. The Court likens the leave inquiry to a facial Rule 91a-style analysis, with a critical distinction:
    • granting leave has no preclusive effect on later pretrial motions (Rule 91a, summary judgment, etc.).
    • once filed, a quo warranto action proceeds under the normal Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; any dispositive motion can test legal sufficiency or factual support in the ordinary course.

On this standard, most of Annunciation House’s arguments—about evidence, Fourth Amendment nuances, or RFRA balancing—are premature. They go to the merits, not to whether the AG may file at all.

E. The Alien-Harboring Predicate: Interpretation, Preemption, and Vagueness

1. Scope of Texas’s harboring statute and alignment with Cruz v. Abbott

The AG’s predicate for quo warranto is Penal Code § 20.05(a)(2), which prohibits “knowingly encourag[ing] or induc[ing] a person to enter or remain in this country in violation of federal law by concealing, harboring, or shielding that person from detection,” and § 20.07(a)(1), which makes it an offense to “use any real estate . . . or other property to commit” a § 20.05 offense.

Two key steps:

  1. The Court adopts (in substance) the Fifth Circuit’s Cruz v. Abbott construction:
    • “harboring” demands a degree of covertness—conduct aimed at hiding a person from immigration authorities—not simply renting them an apartment or providing shelter or food.
    • Legislative repetition of the “harboring” formulation that has been consistently interpreted this way in federal and other contexts supports this reading.
    • Thus, mere provision of humanitarian aid, standing alone, is not a crime under § 20.05(a)(2).
  2. Applying that construction to the AG’s allegations:
    • Annunciation House characterizes its conduct as providing refuge and asserting guests’ Fourth Amendment rights.
    • The AG, however, alleges far more: that Annunciation House:
      • knows many guests are unlawfully present,
      • refuses to let law enforcement enter its facilities to shield those guests from detection, and
      • systematically seeks to impede or thwart immigration enforcement.
    • Taking those allegations as true at the leave stage, they plausibly describe “concealing, harboring, or shielding . . . from detection” within the meaning of § 20.05(a)(2) as interpreted by Cruz.

This dual move is important:

  • it protects NGOs and religious ministries from criminalization based solely on providing shelter or basic aid; and
  • it still preserves room for prosecutions (or quo warranto actions) where there is purposeful evasion or obstruction of detection.

2. Federal preemption (field and conflict)

Annunciation House argued that the Texas harboring statute is preempted by federal law (particularly 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)), either because immigration is a federally occupied “field” or because the state law conflicts with federal objectives. The Court squarely rejects both theories.

  • Field preemption.
    • The opinion notes that the Supreme Court has declined to treat all immigration-adjacent regulation as field-preempted (De Canas v. Bica, Kansas v. Garcia).
    • The Texas statute does not regulate alien registration (the focus in Arizona v. United States) and is instead closely parallel to federal harboring provisions.
    • At most, the “field” is a narrow “anti-harboring” space, and at least one federal appellate court (Keller v. City of Fremont) has rejected field preemption even there.
  • Conflict preemption.
    • Impossibility. The statutes are parallel; it is not physically impossible to comply with both federal and Texas harboring law. Indeed, the overlap makes conflict less likely (Whiting, Zyla Life Sciences).
    • Obstacle. The Court is wary of freewheeling “purpose/obstacle” preemption, especially in an area of traditional state power (criminal law and corporate regulation) where Congress must clearly manifest any intent to displace states.
    • Section 1324(c) explicitly authorizes “all . . . officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws” to arrest for federal harboring violations, which has long been understood to include state and local officers. That is strong evidence Congress did not intend to exclude the states from complementary enforcement.
    • Disagreement with federal enforcement priorities is not the same as conflict with “Laws of the United States,” citing Kansas v. Garcia.

Conclusion: Texas’s harboring statute is neither field- nor conflict-preempted and may serve as a valid predicate for the AG’s quo warranto filing.

3. Vagueness challenge

The trial court alternatively held that applying the harboring statute (via quo warranto) would render both it and the quo warranto statute unconstitutionally vague under the Due Course of Law clause (Tex. Const. art. I, § 19) and federal due process. Annunciation House’s main argument was that allowing the AG to choose which criminal-law violations justify charter forfeiture creates a “standardless sweep.”

The Court rejects that:

  • Vagueness doctrine is primarily about:
    • fair notice of what conduct is prohibited, and
    • guarding against arbitrary enforcement by providing minimal standards to those who enforce the law.
  • Here:
    • the underlying criminal statute (harboring) has a determinate meaning—especially as construed to require active shielding—and Annunciation House itself acknowledges that the Cruz construction “avoids vagueness problems.”
    • Allowing the AG to enforce existing, sufficiently determinate criminal laws via criminal prosecutions or quo warranto is not analogous to vague ordinances like “annoying conduct” that leave citizens guessing about what is forbidden.
    • Prosecutorial discretion (including choice among enforcement tools) has never been held, by itself, to violate due process so long as the underlying substantive norms are sufficiently clear (Batchelder, Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. Missouri).

Thus, neither the harboring statute nor its use as a quo warranto predicate is unconstitutionally vague as applied here.

F. RFRA: Why It Cannot Block Filing at the Threshold

Annunciation House invoked the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 110) both affirmatively and defensively. The trial court agreed that closing Annunciation House would substantially burden its religious exercise and ruled that RFRA barred the AG’s attempted quo warranto action.

The Supreme Court does not reject RFRA’s relevance in principle. It assumes, without deciding, that RFRA applies fully in this context. Instead, it holds that RFRA cannot sensibly be used to prevent the AG from merely filing the action.

  • RFRA’s structure is merits-focused. RFRA claims (and defenses) require:
    • showing a substantial burden on a specific religious exercise,
    • followed by government proof of a compelling interest and least restrictive means as applied “to the person” asserting the right (Barr v. City of Sinton, O Centro).
    That is highly fact-dependent and usually requires a developed record.
  • The only “government action” at issue now is filing a pleading.
    • The AG’s ultimate requested remedy (charter revocation and shutdown of operations) would obviously implicate RFRA in a serious way; but that’s not what is before the Court.
    • At the leave-to-file stage, the only question is whether the AG may put his allegations into a formal pleading. Litigation itself is the context in which RFRA is designed to operate; it is not itself normally treated as a substantial burden.
  • Timing and posture matter.
    • The Court distinguishes Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, where RFRA supported immediate injunctive relief because the Commission’s public warning and threats of discipline were already chilling religious exercise, and the facts were essentially undisputed.
    • Here, virtually everything RFRA-relevant is hotly contested and undeveloped.

Result: RFRA issues are reserved for later. On remand, Annunciation House can assert RFRA as a defense (or via counterclaim) to the AG’s requested remedies, and the trial court must then undertake the required individualized inquiry. But RFRA cannot be invoked to prevent the AG from even initiating the process.

G. The Records-Request Regime and the Fourth Amendment (Patel)

1. The statutory scheme and the trial court’s ruling

Business Organizations Code §§ 12.151–.152 empower the AG to “inspect, examine, and make copies” of any corporate records and direct that a “managerial official . . . shall immediately permit” such inspection upon written request. Noncompliance may result in forfeiture of the right to do business and criminal penalties. The AG’s agents invoked this statute at Annunciation House’s shelter, demanding immediate production on pain of charter forfeiture and criminal sanction.

Relying on City of Los Angeles v. Patel, the trial court held the statute facially unconstitutional because it allegedly provided no opportunity for “precompliance review” before penalties attached. It then issued a sweeping injunction:

  • forbidding the AG from making further records requests to Annunciation House except through that court,
  • requiring that court to conduct precompliance review of any requests, and
  • purporting to retain jurisdiction over such disputes for two years.

2. Patel and the need for precompliance review

In Patel, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an L.A. ordinance requiring motel operators to provide guest records to police “on demand,” with immediate arrest and criminal penalties for refusal. The City argued that operators had no right to precompliance review before turning over records, which the Court held violated the Fourth Amendment.

Crucially, Patel:

  • did not outlaw administrative subpoenas or inspections generally, and
  • did not prescribe a particular form of precompliance review—only that there must be “an opportunity to obtain precompliance review before a neutral decisionmaker” before penalties are imposed.

3. Saving construction of §§ 12.151–.152

The Texas Supreme Court applies the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and the presumption that the Legislature enacts statutes against a backdrop of existing law (here, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 176.6(e) on protective orders for subpoenas).

  • “Immediately” cannot be read literally.
    • It cannot mean “instantly, without lapse of time,” because literal instantaneous compliance is physically impossible.
    • The better reading is that production must occur as soon as practicable, with the deadline flexible enough to vary by context.
  • Background availability of precompliance review.
    • At the time §§ 12.151–.152 were re-enacted into the modern Business Organizations Code, Rule 176.6(e) already allowed recipients of subpoenas or inspection commands to seek protective orders “before the time specified for compliance.”
    • Nothing in §§ 12.151–.152 purports to override or displace that rule. Reading the term “immediately” in light of existing procedure, rather than as eliminating it, is both textually reasonable and constitutionally safer.

Accordingly, the Court holds:

  • the AG’s inspection authority is constitutional on its face because corporations have the right to seek precompliance judicial review (e.g., via Rule 176.6) before sanctions are imposed; and
  • the trial court erred in declaring the statute facially unconstitutional and in issuing an extraordinary case-specific injunction that effectively required the AG to obtain that court’s permission before exercising a general statewide statutory power.

The Court hints that even apart from the constitutional error, the injunction was overbroad and structurally suspect: injunctions must be “narrowly drawn and precise,” and forcing an elected statewide officer to clear his investigative steps with a single district court for two years plainly raises separation-of-powers concerns.

H. The “Save Chick-fil-A” Statute and Alleged Anti-Catholic Harassment

The trial court also found that the AG’s record requests constituted religious harassment under Government Code § 2400.002 (popularly known as the “Save Chick-fil-A” law), which bars adverse government action “based wholly or partly on” a person’s religious affiliation or support.

The Supreme Court:

  • notes that Annunciation House did not defend this ruling on appeal, and
  • finds no evidence in the record suggesting that the AG’s actions were motivated by the nonprofit’s Catholic affiliation rather than by suspected violations of state criminal law.

Citing Von Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, the Court emphasizes that courts must presume state actors intend to comply with § 2400.002 “until the contrary is shown.” No such contrary showing appears here.

I. Judicial Tone, Presumption of Regularity, and Separation of Powers

Although the primary holdings are doctrinal, the opinion is strikingly candid in its criticism of the trial court’s rhetoric and approach.

  • The trial court accused the AG of “selectively interpret[ing] or misus[ing]” laws “to advance his own personal beliefs or political agenda” and “harass[ing] a human-rights organization.”
  • The Supreme Court, invoking Webster and Borgelt, reminds the lower court that:
    • the AG, as a constitutional officer of a coordinate branch, is entitled to a presumption of good faith, legality, and regularity,
    • courts must begin with the assumption that state officers intend to comply with the Constitution, and
    • allegations of bad faith require evidence, not judicial suspicion or disagreement with policy choices.

This admonition has broader implications: it signals to trial courts that they may not use injunctive power or constitutional rhetoric to preemptively disable statewide officials from exercising constitutionally grounded functions—especially absent concrete evidence of unlawful motive or conduct.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

The opinion is dense with specialized legal concepts. The following clarifications may help:

1. Quo warranto

Quo warranto is an old legal device used to ask “By what authority are you doing this?” Historically it allowed the sovereign (now the state) to:

  • challenge a person’s claim to hold a public office or franchise (e.g., mayor, corporate charter), and
  • forfeit or oust them if they had no lawful right or had abused that right.

In modern Texas:

  • it is a civil proceeding,
  • must generally be brought by the AG or public prosecutors, and
  • is the exclusive method for certain types of challenges (like attacking a municipality’s annexation).

2. “Facial” vs. “as-applied” constitutional challenges

  • Facial challenge: argues that a statute is invalid in all or virtually all of its applications. For example, saying “this records-inspection statute never allows precompliance review, so it always violates the Fourth Amendment.”
  • As-applied challenge: concedes the statute could be valid in some circumstances, but is unconstitutional as applied to a particular party or set of facts.

Facial challenges are harder to win and require stronger evidence that the statute, by its own terms, cannot operate constitutionally.

3. RFRA’s test

Under the Texas RFRA:

  1. The person claiming protection must show that a “government agency” has substantially burdened his or her “free exercise of religion.”
  2. If that showing is made, the government must prove:
    • a compelling governmental interest (very important objective), and
    • least restrictive means: there is no less-restrictive way to achieve that interest with respect to this particular person.

It is an exacting test, requiring fact-intensive scrutiny of both the religious practice burdened and the government’s precise aims and alternatives.

4. Federal preemption

Preemption arises when federal law supersedes state law. Key types here:

  • Field preemption: Congress has so fully occupied a particular area of law that states are entirely excluded (e.g., certain aspects of foreign relations).
  • Conflict preemption:
    • Impossibility: it is literally impossible to comply with both state and federal law.
    • Obstacle: state law stands as an obstacle to the “full purposes and objectives” of Congress.

The Court is skeptical of broad “purpose/obstacle” arguments that rely on generalized policy preferences rather than the actual text and structure of federal statutes, especially where state criminal law is involved.

5. Precompliance review (Patel)

Precompliance review means the opportunity, before you are punished for noncompliance, to go to a neutral court or tribunal and argue that a records request or inspection is unlawful or overbroad. Under Patel, if the government:

  • demands immediate access to business records,
  • threatens criminal penalties for refusal, and
  • affords no avenue to challenge the demand before being punished,

the regime is likely unconstitutional. But if there is any meaningful avenue to seek a court’s protection before sanctions attach, the Fourth Amendment is typically satisfied.

6. Standard for “leave to file” quo warranto

“Leave to file” is a gatekeeping step unique to quo warranto: the AG must obtain a court’s permission before filing the information. Under this opinion:

  • the judge assumes the AG’s allegations are true,
  • asks whether those allegations, if true, would state a claim authorized by the relevant statutes and Constitution, and
  • does not weigh evidence, credibility, or defenses like RFRA at this stage.

It is somewhat akin to screening out obviously legally defective complaints while allowing plausibly grounded ones to proceed to normal litigation.

V. Likely Impact on Future Cases and Texas Law

1. Strengthening the AG’s structural authority

The most enduring doctrinal legacy of this opinion is the robust reading of art. IV, § 22 and its “unless otherwise expressly directed by law” clause. This:

  • constitutionalizes a strong presumption that the AG may employ quo warranto against private corporations for a wide range of misconduct, including some criminal violations;
  • requires the Legislature to clearly and explicitly state any intended limitation or abolition of quo warranto in particular domains; and
  • limits trial courts’ ability to infer implied repeals or restrictions from general statutes.

Future attempts by the Legislature to cabin the AG’s corporate enforcement powers—especially through silence or indirect structures—will likely be scrutinized under this clear-statement rule.

2. Nonprofits and immigrant-aid organizations

For religious charities and NGOs working with migrants, the opinion sends mixed, but clarifying, signals:

  • Protection: Confirming Cruz-style limits on “harboring” protects organizations that:
    • provide shelter, food, and basic services, and
    • do not affirmatively hide or shield people from detection.
  • Risk: At the same time, the AG is empowered to litigate whether particular practices cross the line into active concealment (e.g., refusing any law-enforcement access because guests are undocumented; organizing evasion of enforcement).
  • RFRA remains in play. The Court’s refusal to resolve RFRA at the threshold preserves a significant shield that may, ultimately, protect religiously motivated ministries from the most drastic sanctions (like charter forfeiture), depending on the facts and the State’s ability to prove least-restrictive means.

3. Corporate regulation generally

The decision reaffirms that:

  • corporate charters remain subject to forfeiture for abuse or unlawful conduct; and
  • quo warranto is still a viable, if rarely used, mechanism for state oversight—potentially complementing or overlapping with more modern regulatory and shareholder-derivative tools.

While actual corporate charter forfeiture remains drastic and rare, this opinion may encourage more aggressive use of quo warranto in cases of systemic corporate illegality or abuse of privilege.

4. State involvement in immigration-adjacent enforcement

The preemption holding, anchored in Whiting and Kansas v. Garcia, bolsters states’ ability to:

  • adopt and enforce criminal statutes that parallel federal immigration crimes (like harboring), and
  • use state civil tools (including quo warranto) to enforce those norms against corporate actors.

The Court is careful not to greenlight general state immigration policymaking, but this decision narrows the room for arguing that any contact between state criminal law and immigration is preempted simply because immigration is “federal.”

5. Judicial control over statewide officers

The Court’s criticism of the trial court’s injunction and rhetoric will likely be cited in:

  • future disputes over trial-court efforts to enjoin or structurally manage statewide officers’ investigative or litigation decisions, and
  • cases involving accusations that the AG or other constitutional officers are acting out of bad faith or political animus.

Lower courts are reminded that:

  • they cannot assume bad motives in the absence of evidence, and
  • they must avoid remedies that effectively subject statewide powers to ongoing supervision by a single district judge without clear statutory or constitutional warrant.

6. Fourth Amendment and administrative investigations

On the Fourth Amendment front, the Court’s construction of “immediately” in § 12.152 will:

  • likely be applied to similar statutes that appear to require instantaneous compliance with agency demands,
  • encourage agencies and courts to rely on existing procedural tools (like protective orders) as the mechanism for precompliance review, rather than inventing new bespoke procedures, and
  • constrain lower courts from reaching for facial invalidation when a reasonable saving construction is available.

VI. Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Texas’s opinion in Paxton v. Annunciation House is a structural decision more than a merits decision. It does not decide whether Annunciation House has broken the law, whether its charter may ultimately be forfeited, or whether RFRA bars such a sanction. Instead, it:

  • reaffirms and clarifies the Attorney General’s constitutional authority to use quo warranto against corporations, including based on alleged criminal violations, subject only to express legislative limitations,
  • adopts a deferential, pleadings-based standard for granting leave to file quo warranto informations,
  • interprets the state alien-harboring statute in a narrowly tailored way that protects ordinary sheltering but allows prosecution (or civil enforcement) for deliberate shielding from detection,
  • rejects preemption and vagueness attacks that would have incapacitated that statute as a civil predicate,
  • construes the AG’s records-inspection powers to include constitutionally required precompliance review, avoiding a Patel-style facial invalidation, and
  • vacates sweeping, structurally dubious injunctions that had effectively placed a religious nonprofit beyond the AG’s investigative reach and had subjected a constitutional officer’s powers to a district court’s ongoing supervision.

In the broader legal context, the case strengthens separation of powers by:

  • entrenching the AG’s independent enforcement role as envisioned in the 1876 Constitution, and
  • reminding courts that their proper function is to adjudicate disputes brought before them, not to preemptively disable another branch’s core functions absent clear constitutional command or compelling evidence of illegality.

At the same time, by reserving RFRA issues and construing harboring narrowly, the Court preserves substantial space for religious ministries and humanitarian groups to continue serving migrants, subject to later, fact-intensive judicial review if the State seeks to impose severe sanctions. The real merits battle over how Texas criminal law, federal immigration law, and religious liberty interact in this context has thus been deferred, not resolved—but it will now take place in ordinary litigation, rather than being foreclosed at the courthouse door.

Case Details

Comments