Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc., 24-0573, May 30, 2025.
On appeal from 205th Judicial District Court, El Paso County, Texas
Synopsis
The Supreme Court of Texas held the trial court erred in prematurely enjoining the Attorney General from pursuing records and filing a quo warranto action against Annunciation House: The Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file the proposed quo warranto and the injunctions were premature. The court confined its decision to that threshold question and remanded for the litigation to proceed on the merits, leaving open the substantive defenses (including RFRA and constitutional claims).
Relevance to Family Law
Although this case arises in a civic enforcement context, its procedural and discovery holdings carry immediate implications for family-law practice: (1) courts should be wary of issuing broad pre-filing or precompliance injunctions against statutory investigatory processes absent a developed record; (2) third-party record requests directed at nonprofits, faith-based organizations, or shelters that intersect with family disputes (custody, domestic violence shelters, hidden-asset investigations) require careful navigation of statutory authority, privilege and religious-liberty claims; and (3) the decision underscores the tactical importance of timely legal response, protective orders, and properly framed jurisdictional and constitutional challenges rather than premature summary judgment on facial constitutional grounds.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Annunciation House, an El Paso nonprofit that provides shelter to migrants and others in need, was served with a formal Request to Examine corporate records under Business Organizations Code §§ 12.151–.156 by the Texas Attorney General, who also alleged the nonprofit was unlawfully harboring undocumented migrants and sought leave to file a quo warranto counterclaim to revoke the corporation’s charter. Annunciation House sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting constitutional violations, religious-harassment protections, and other defenses. The trial court granted summary judgment for Annunciation House, held the records-request statute facially unconstitutional (on First and Fourth Amendment grounds), found the AG could not bring quo warranto based on the harboring allegations, and enjoined the Attorney General from proceeding. The Attorney General appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Issues Decided
The Supreme Court resolved whether the trial court correctly: (1) declared the Business Organizations Code records-request statute unconstitutional and enjoined its use; (2) precluded the Attorney General from pursuing a quo warranto action predicated on alleged illegal-alien harboring; and (3) properly entered preliminary injunctions that barred the Attorney General from filing the quo warranto and from using the statutory records request absent precompliance review.
Rules Applied
The Court construed the Attorney General’s constitutional authority to bring quo warranto alongside Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 66.002(d), analyzed the Business Organizations Code provisions authorizing records examination (Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code §§ 12.151–.156), and considered the interplay with the Penal Code provisions criminalizing harboring (§§ 20.05(a)(2), 20.07(a)(1)). The opinion references procedural posture under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (precompliance superseding the immediate demand), prior federal decisions the trial court relied upon (notably Cruz v. Abbott), and statutes invoked by Annunciation House such as Government Code § 2400.002 and state religious-liberty protections, with acknowledgment that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act may figure in later proceedings.
Application
The Court emphasized that the trial court erred by resolving expansive constitutional questions and issuing broad injunctions at an early stage. Instead of deciding the merits of the harboring allegations, the Court focused on whether the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action and whether the trial court’s injunctions were appropriate before full development of the record. The Court concluded that statutory authority and the constitutional role of the Attorney General permit the filing of a quo warranto claim and that precluding the AG from even initiating the action was premature. The majority thereby returned the dispute to the ordinary litigation sequence — discovery, evidentiary development, and adjudication — where the parties may litigate statutory interpretation, preemption, religious-liberty defenses, and constitutional claims on the merits.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in its constitutional rulings and injunctions. Specifically, the Court determined that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file the proposed quo warranto action seeking revocation of Annunciation House’s charter if the underlying allegations are proven. The Court further held that the trial court’s injunctions preventing the Attorney General from filing the quo warranto or pursuing statutory records examination were premature; the proper course is to allow the litigation to proceed so the factual and legal questions may be resolved on a developed record. The Court declined to resolve the substantive questions (e.g., whether the harboring statutes apply, whether RFRA or other constitutional protections defeat the claims) and expressly left those issues for later adjudication.
Practical Application
For family-law practitioners, the opinion reinforces several tactical and strategic principles.
When disputes implicate records held by shelters, faith-based entities, or other nonprofits — whether for discovery of assets, proof of a parent’s whereabouts, or evidence in abuse/relocation/custody matters — do not assume immediate judicial shielding from government or private investigatory processes. Prompt, legally grounded responses to governmental or third-party records demands are essential: A claim that a statute is facially unconstitutional or that a records demand constitutes religious harassment is a high-stakes, fact-intensive argument that the Court will expect to be litigated on a full record.
Use motions for protective orders, seek narrowly tailored relief, and preserve jurisdictional and privilege objections.
Also, where an adverse party suggests administrative or statutory remedies that could impinge on a client’s organization (e.g., a nonprofit spouse’s shelter), consider the possibility of quo warranto-analogous proceedings and the limited ability of a trial court to enjoin pre-filing statutory actions absent developed facts.
Lastly, because RFRA and religious-liberty claims can be dispositive in cases involving faith-based entities, coordinate constitutional defenses early and preserve evidentiary foundations to support them.
Checklists
Gather Your Evidence
- Identify and catalogue the specific records sought (dates, custodians, formats).
- Preserve metadata and chain-of-custody for electronic files.
- Secure declarations or affidavits from nonprofit leadership regarding purpose, intake procedures, and religious mission.
- Collect client-specific records that may be framed as privileged (counseling, pastoral communications).
Respond to a Governmental Records Request
- Confirm statutory basis for the request and the deadline for compliance.
- Immediately notify organizational leadership and counsel; obtain litigation hold.
- Seek clarification in writing about scope and exigency.
- If appropriate, file for precompliance review or a narrowly tailored temporary restraining order rather than broad facial challenges.
- If asserting constitutional or RFRA defenses, gather factual support to avoid premature adjudication.
Subpoena/Third-Party Records in Family Cases
- Evaluate privileges (religious, counseling, medical) and whether protective orders can be obtained.
- Meet and confer to narrow scope before filing motions to compel or motions to quash.
- Consider in-camera review as a compromise to avoid exposure of sensitive records.
- Be prepared to seek expedited relief if records implicate safety or ongoing harm.
Defending Against Entity-Focused Enforcement (quo warranto-like threats)
- Assess organizational governance documents and compliance history.
- Preserve board minutes, policies, and training materials that demonstrate lawful operations.
- Prepare factual testimony to rebut allegations of criminal conduct.
- Challenge jurisdictional or procedural defects but avoid seeking broad facial rulings absent a full record.
Citation
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc., No. 24-0573 (Tex. May 30, 2025).
Full Opinion
Full opinion (Supreme Court of Texas) — 24-0573 (May 30, 2025)
Share this content: