The State of Texas v. Harris County, Texas
15-24-00061-CV
Tex. App.Jun 2, 2025Background
- The case involves Harris County’s Uplift Harris and Community Prosperity Programs, both providing federal funds to poor residents and currently subject to temporary injunctions.
- The State of Texas challenges the constitutionality of these programs under the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on counties making grants to individuals.
- Harris County argues that the original understanding of the 1876 Texas Constitution allowed counties to support the poor as a legitimate public function.
- A recent Texas Supreme Court decision in Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc. is highlighted as strongly informing the issues in these appeals.
- Dispute also centers on whether the Texas Attorney General has the authority to represent the State in district courts for this purpose or if that authority is vested exclusively in county attorneys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether poor relief programs violate the Texas Constitution | Grants to poor individuals are constitutionally prohibited | Constitutions and contemporaneous statutes allowed such support | Permissible public function |
| Original meaning of 1876 Constitution regarding poor relief | Intended to ban all assistance to individuals | Support for paupers specifically contemplated by drafters | Original meaning allows support |
| Authority to represent State in district court | Attorney General has power to represent State | County attorneys exclusively have authority in district courts | County attorneys have authority |
| Interpretive value of legislative actions post-ratification | Not decisive | Early statutes and legislative construction confirm understanding | Legislative history is valuable |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Indem. Co. v. City of Austin, 246 S.W. 1019 (Tex. 1922) (legislative construction and contemporaneous exposition of constitutional provisions are valuable in interpretation)
- Maud v. Terrell, 200 S.W. 375 (Tex. 1918) (constitutional delegation of representation in district court is exclusive to county attorneys)
- State v. Moore, 57 Tex. 307 (Tex. 1882) (when constitution selects a depository of a power, that body typically holds it exclusively)
- State v. Int'l & Great N. Ry., 35 S.W. 1067 (Tex. 1896) (exclusive authority of attorney general in certain proceedings)