Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently faced a setback when a federal magistrate judge ruled that he cannot use a state statute called a “request to examine” to investigate companies and nonprofits. This ruling came after a lawsuit filed by Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., a manufacturer of Boeing 737 jets, challenged the constitutionality of the statute.
The judge, Mark Lane, granted a permanent injunction against Paxton, stating that the statute violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution by allowing the attorney general to inspect records without an opportunity for precompliance judicial review. This decision has raised questions about the legality of Paxton’s past investigations that relied on the request to examine tool.
The ruling has implications for cases where Paxton’s office has used requests to examine that are still pending in state courts. It also sheds light on the increased scrutiny that the Attorney General’s Office has placed on nonprofits, especially those whose missions align with Paxton’s political views.
The request to examine statute dates back to the state’s constitution of 1876 and grants the attorney general authority over private corporations. This tool has been used by Paxton to investigate various organizations, including those supporting immigrants and refugees, as well as nonprofits focused on civic participation among Latinos.
In a recent investigation, Paxton’s office sent requests to examine to organizations that had received funding from the Texas Bar Foundation, alleging that they were supporting illegal immigration. The attorney general also targeted hospitals providing gender-affirming care for minors, just as state lawmakers were passing a ban on such treatments.
One of the most high-profile cases involved Paxton’s investigation of Annunciation House, a nonprofit in El Paso that provides shelter to immigrants and refugees. Despite legal disputes, a state judge denied Paxton’s attempt to shut down the organization. However, the case is now pending before the state’s Supreme Court.
Critics of Paxton’s investigative tactics, including organizations like the Texas Immigration Law Council and the Texas Civil Rights Project, have raised concerns about the overreach of the attorney general’s office. They argue that the request to examine statute gives Paxton unchecked power to target nonprofit organizations and violate their constitutional rights.
The recent ruling by Judge Lane is seen as a victory for those who believe that Paxton’s use of the request to examine tool is unconstitutional. It remains to be seen how this decision will impact future investigations by the Attorney General’s Office and whether Paxton plans to appeal the ruling.
Overall, the ruling highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding Paxton’s investigative practices and raises questions about the balance between law enforcement powers and individual rights in Texas. As the case continues to unfold, it underscores the importance of upholding constitutional protections in the face of government overreach.
