Judge places temporary block on rule requiring urban DAs to hand over case data to AG Ken Paxton

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

---

A Travis County district judge has temporarily blocked rules that give Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton meticulous access to the office records of urban district attorneys, some of whom sued Paxton in May.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn the new rule created by Paxton’s office giving his staff discretion to request almost all documents from cases county officials work on, regardless of whether they are being pursued. The seven district attorneys suing Paxton said the rule is an unconstitutional overreach that would needlessly burden offices that would have to present “terabytes” of data to the attorney general.

Travis County District Judge Catherine Mauzy granted a temporary injunction against the rules on Monday and submitted the injunction to the court on Friday, weeks before the first required report would have been due. In the injunction filing, Mauzy wrote the district attorneys are likely to prevail at trial, and that their offices would need to "expend a significant amount of resources, personnel time, and taxpayer funds" to create the first reports due June 30.

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 meets. 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 with Fort Bend and Williamson counties filed a third. All three seek to block Paxton from being able to enforce the rule, alleging it violates the state Constitution and federal law.

The background: 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 twelve 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.

Why the district attorneys sued: The three lawsuits claim the law cited by the new Chapter 56 does not provide Paxton’s office with the sweeping jurisdiction the rule creates — and that providing the information requested would be both expensive and illegal. One lawsuit from Dallas, Harris and Bexar county attorneys claims the rule seeks to achieve a “political objective” by burdening officials and creating strict consequences for noncompliance.

“These reporting requirements do not make communities safer,” Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales said. “They do not identify trends, improve transparency, or enhance public trust. Instead, they create barriers that divert limited resources away from what matters most, which is prosecuting violent offenders and protecting our community.”

The trio’s lawsuit also maintains the rule violates the Texas Constitution’s protections on separation of powers because the attorney general has “no authority” to expand the definition of official misconduct.

A second lawsuit filed by the district attorneys from El Paso and Travis counties marks similar issues with the new rule, and also claims it would require illegally forfeiting the private information of victims working with their offices. In a press release from March, Paxton’s office states the new rule will help “assist citizens” in judging prosecutors’ performance, which attorneys in the second suit worry indicates private information could be shared with the public.

“The Challenged Rules purport to require an unprecedented level of disclosure of privileged and confidential information from only some of the State’s prosecutors for the sole purpose of unconstitutional oversight,” the lawsuit reads.

What Paxton says: The attorney general has 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, common-sense measure” that aims to shed light on attorneys who may be refusing to prosecute dangerous crimes.

"It is no surprise that rogue DAs who would rather turn violent criminals loose on the streets than do their jobs are afraid of transparency and accountability,” Paxton said in a statement about the lawsuit from Dallas, Harris and Bexar county officials. “This lawsuit is meritless and merely a sad, desperate attempt to conceal information from the public they were sworn to protect."

Paxton’s office also waived concerns about potentially burdensome time or financial costs, stating in the Texas Register that their assessment finds “minimal, if any, fiscal impact.” Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment on the injunction against the rule.

Other factors: The new rule is not the only way elected officials in Texas have sought to rein in “rogue” district attorneys in recent years through a similar enforcement mechanism. The state Legislature passed House Bill 17 in 2023, which allows courts to remove district attorneys who refuse to prosecute certain crimes, also through “official misconduct” designation.

Republican lawmakers at the time rallied behind the bill after criticizing Democratic district attorneys for not pursuing alleged voter fraud or prosecuting abortion-related cases. José Garza, the Democratic district attorney for Travis County who joined El Paso and Bexar counties in suing Paxton, was unsuccessfully sued through the law’s provision in 2024.

A trial for the suit has been set for Dec. 8, according to the injunction.

---

First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!