The State of Texas v. Harris County, Texas
15-24-00061-CV
Tex. App.Jun 10, 2025Background
- The State of Texas sued Harris County challenging two programs: the Community Prosperity Program and Uplift Harris, arguing they violate the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clauses.
- Harris County argued the Attorney General lacked authority—common-law or otherwise—to bring lawsuits not based on express statutory or constitutional authorization.
- The Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc. clarified and reaffirmed the Attorney General’s common-law authority to pursue certain actions, even in the absence of explicit statutory language.
- The dispute also centered on whether the County’s aid to the poor, as structured, serves a public purpose and satisfies constitutional and historical requirements for controls over public funds.
- Procedurally, the State issued a post-submission letter responding to Harris County’s arguments after Annunciation House was decided, placing particular emphasis on the effect of that new precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Harris County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AG’s Common-Law Authority | Attorney General has common-law power to bring ultra vires actions, reaffirmed by Annunciation House | No such common-law authority; AG must have express statutory or constitutional grant | AG possesses common-law authority to sue |
| Statutory Adoption of Common Law | Civil Prac. & Rem. Code § 5.001 incorporates both causes of action and AG’s authority to bring them | 'Rule of decision' statute recognizes actions but does not authorize AG to bring them | Statute incorporates AG’s authority |
| Gift Clause Application | Programs violate constitutional limits on gifts to private individuals; lack of statutorily-required controls | Aid to the poor is historically a valid government purpose; historical and constitutional context allows county programs | Programs not permitted as structured; lack of controls is fatal |
| Effect of Annunciation House | Clarifies and controls key authority points; supports AG’s position and prior cases | Does not alter prior arguments; tries to distinguish Annunciation House | Annunciation House supports AG and State’s interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Tolbert, 644 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2022) (common-law principles incorporated unless clearly repudiated by legislature)
- Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Arce, 672 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. 2023) (application of common-law principles to constitutional interpretation)
- Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1991) (AG’s broad discretion in representing the State)
- Maud v. Terrell, 200 S.W. 375 (Tex. 1918) (exclusive powers of AG and county attorneys cannot be delegated)
- Yett v. Cook, 281 S.W. 837 (Tex. 1926) (AG may bring common-law causes of action as chief law enforcement officer)
- State v. Hollins, 620 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2020) (AG can maintain actions to prevent abuse of power by public officials)
- Borgelt v. Austin Firefighters Ass’n, IAFF Loc. 975, 692 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2024) (Gift Clause test requires both public purpose and controls)
- Collingsworth County v. Allred, 40 S.W.2d 13 (Tex. 1931) (constitution is construed as a whole, including all amendments)