Federal Judge Blocks Texas Law Being Used by AG Paxton to Investigate Nonprofits in The State

A federal judge in Texas ruled that a statute frequently used by Attorney General Ken Paxton to investigate companies and nonprofits in the state is unconstitutional. The statute, known as the "request to examine," allows the attorney general to demand immediate access to an organization's records without judicial review.

This case arose after Paxton issued a "request to examine" to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., a Boeing 737 manufacturer. The request indicated that the Attorney General's Office was investigating whether Spirit's practices and procedures, including its handling of defects, inspection changes, diversity policies, and employee demographics, are in compliance with the law.

The request ordered Spirit to release documents related to defect disclosures, procedural changes, corrective measures, diversity and inclusion, employee demographics and layoffs, compensation plan, and personnel files.

Spirit filed a lawsuit challenging the statute, claiming it violated Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure by forcing businesses to grant immediate access to records without a chance for judicial review.

Judge Mark Lane of the Western District of Texas consequently issued a permanent injunction against Paxton's use of this tool.

According to the Texas Tribune, the ruling could significantly impact ongoing investigations Paxton's office has launched against various organizations, including nonprofit groups that advocate for immigrant and Latino rights.

Critics argue that Paxton has targeted organizations with missions that conflict with his political agenda. Texas Immigration Law Council's Kristin Etter told the Texas Tribune that the ruling is a victory for Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted government intrusion.

The statute, dating back to the Texas Constitution of 1876, grants the attorney general broad investigative powers over private corporations. However, opponents, including legal experts and nonprofit leaders, argue that Paxton's application of this power represents an overreach, infringing on constitutional rights.

Paxton's office, per the Texas Tribune, has not yet commented on the ruling or indicated whether it will appeal.