Texas Supreme Court Greenlights Paxton's Probe Of Illegal Alien Shelter
(Texas Scorecard) – The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that Attorney General Ken Paxton can investigate and seek judicial remedies against Annunciation House, a Catholic non-profit that operates several homeless shelters throughout the El Paso area allegedly benefitting illegal aliens.
Published Friday morning, the Texas Supreme Court opinion states that Paxton has the authority to file a quo warranto action challenging Annunciation House's right to do business in Texas. If Paxton's accusations are accurate, it could lead to the closure of Annunciation House.
In February 2024, Paxton requested access to the organization's records after accusing it of aiding and sheltering illegal aliens. His request was denied. This was followed by an El Paso district judge's ruling that further blocked Paxton's request.
Paxton appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit to the Texas Supreme Court in July 2024, and the court heard oral arguments in the case earlier this year.
Justice Evan Young, who delivered the opinion, concluded that there is no lawful reason to bar Paxton from filing a quo warranto action or requesting records in this situation. Quo warrantos have a long historical standing in both common law and in the Texas Constitution.
'We conclude that the trial court erred in its constitutional holdings,' wrote Young in the opinion. 'We likewise conclude that the court's related injunctions, which prevent the attorney general from even filing a quo warranto action, were premature at best.'
Additionally, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Annunciation House that Texas law limits the attorney general's authority and that the demand of immediate access to records is unconstitutional.
Young further stated that the Supreme Court's decision does not express an opinion on or discuss questions regarding Paxton's accusations against Annunciation House, but leaves them to be determined in the lower courts through usual legal processes.
'The Supreme Court was right to right to respect the AG's authority to investigate and and they were right to withhold judgment about any the substance of the case, which will be determined in due course,' attorney Tony McDonald told Texas Scorecard.
'Today is a great victory for Texas, secure borders, and the rule of law,' said Paxton. 'Annunciation House has flagrantly violated our laws by harboring illegal aliens and assisting them to enter further into our country. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I will do everything in my power to stop them and any other NGO breaking our laws.'
Annunciation House declined to comment on the case at this time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump announces travel ban affecting a dozen countries set to go into effect Monday
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is resurrecting the travel ban policy from his first term, signing a proclamation Wednesday night preventing people from a dozen countries from entering the United States. The countries include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. In addition to the ban, which takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Monday, there will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. 'I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people,' Trump said in his proclamation. The list results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban,' was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds , arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at . ___ Amiri reported from the United Nations.
Chicago Tribune
12 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump announces travel ban affecting a dozen countries set to go into effect Monday
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is resurrecting the travel ban policy from his first term, signing a proclamation Wednesday night preventing people from a dozen countries from entering the United States. The countries include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. In addition to the ban, which takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Monday, there will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. 'I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people,' Trump said in his proclamation. The list results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban,' was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rejects Maryland AR-15 case, and interest groups respond
BALTIMORE — It's not clear if the Supreme Court's decision to deny two gun cases, including a challenge to a Maryland ban on AR-15s, a semi-automatic rifle, will influence how other gun cases are determined. However, gun owners say the split-court's case rejection reflects skepticism from some justices that the ban is constitutional. 'Four members of the Court, including Justice Kavanaugh, have made clear that the Fourth Circuit incorrectly decided the case,' said Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, a group advocating for gun owner rights expansion. In his view, the court's rejection only 'temporarily' allows the ban to hold. 'Once the Court grants review of the issue, the decision in that case will be controlling precedent in MD and elsewhere. If plaintiffs win on this issue in that case, the Maryland law will fail as well,' he said. The ban was enacted in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newton, Connecticut, where 20 children and six school staff members were killed. The Maryland case, Snope v. Brown, was declined alongside a Rhode Island case which contested a ban on high-capacity gun magazines. While Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas said they would hear the case, four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to hear a case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he expects the court will address the issue of AR-15 legality 'in the next Term or two.' Kavanaugh also said that AR–15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, which makes Maryland's law, relatively, 'something of an outlier.' Gun control advocates, including several Maryland elected officials, felt relieved at the high court's decision, saying that Marylanders are safer with the ban in place. Daniel Webster, Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that he views the court's rejection of the case favorably. 'I think it'll mean that assault weapon ban will stay in, and I think that that's generally a good thing in terms of public safety,' Webster said. 'And I think that that is a policy that most Marylanders support for sure.' He also said that there are other states where similar bans have been challenged on Second Amendment grounds, but most courts have supported the bans. Maryland Congressman Glenn Ivey, a Democrat, posted on X, 'This decision sends a clear message: states can take bold action to protect their communities from gun violence. Marylanders shouldn't have to live in fear of weapons of war on our streets.' He also expressed his commitment to supporting 'common-sense gun laws that save lives and uphold our Constitution' in the future. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, also voiced support for the Court's decision. 'Maryland passed its ban on military-style assault weapons after the Sandy Hook massacre,' he posted on X. 'SCOTUS should continue to allow lifesaving laws like Maryland's to remain in place.' Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, the defendant in Snope v. Brown, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's case rejection means the state's ban 'that prevents senseless and preventable deaths' will remain in effect. 'Our Office will continue to advocate for gun safety laws at the General Assembly and will defend Maryland's common-sense gun reforms in court. We will do whatever we can to protect Marylanders from this horrific violence,' the statement said. ________
