The 15th Court of Appeals ruled that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton does not have the authority to mandate a new rule that would compel district attorneys in the state’s most populous areas to share prosecutorial data with the attorney general’s office.
The new rule created by Paxton’s office would have given his staff discretion to request almost all documents from cases county officials work on, regardless of whether they are being pursued. Seven district attorneys sued Paxton saying the rule is an unconstitutional overreach that would needlessly burden offices that would have to present “terabytes” of data to the attorney general. The decision by the appeals court Tuesday kicks the case back to the district court.
Travis County District Judge Catherine Mauzy granted a temporary injunction against the rules in May and submitted the injunction to the court weeks before the first required report would have been due.
The rule, which took effect in April, only applies to counties with 400,000 residents or more — a threshold only 13 counties in the state meet. Paxton’s office has marked the provision as a way to “rein in rogue district attorneys” refusing to uphold the law. Initially, three lawsuits were filed in May: district attorneys from Travis and El Paso counties filed one; district attorneys from Harris, Dallas and Bexar counties filed another; and district attorneys from Fort Bend and Williamson counties filed a third.
The rule, known as Chapter 56, was originally proposed in the administrative code in September 2024. It requires district attorneys to provide all documents or communications produced or received by district attorneys’ offices, including confidential information.
Included in the rule’s definition of “case file” materials eligible for review are all documents, correspondence and handwritten notes relevant to a case. It also requires counties to submit quarterly reports to the attorney general on 12 different subjects, including specific information on indictments of police officers or for violations of election code.
The new Chapter 56 cites a 1985 statute prompting district and county attorneys to report information to the attorney general “in the form that the attorney general directs.” To enforce the collection of documents and communication, the rule would create an “oversight advisory committee” composed of employees from the attorney general’s office. The committee would be able to request entire case files from district attorneys at their discretion. Failing to provide the requested documentation to the advisory committee would result in “official misconduct” under the rule, allowing a district judge to remove a district attorney from office.
The attorney general lauded the new rule as a way to help the public better understand how their local prosecutors are operating and create consequences for those who do not act. In a statement to the Texas Tribune about the lawsuit, Paxton called the rule a “straightforward, commonsense measure” that aims to shed light on attorneys who may be refusing to prosecute dangerous crimes. Paxton’s office also waived concerns about potentially burdensome time or financial costs.