Latest news with #TexasSupremeCourt
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers reach last-minute deal on pay raises for Texas judges
AUSTIN (Nexstar) – Lawmakers worked into the final hours of the legislative session to reach an agreement to provide pay raises for Texas judges. The legislation led to a sharp divide between the House and Senate over how the raises would affect pensions for lawmakers. Senate Bill 293 calls for raising the pay for judges to $175,000 per year. That's a 25% increase from the current $140,000 salary. The legislation comes amid concern that Texas lags behind other states in judicial pay. 'Texas cannot afford to continue to lose talent due to a lack of appropriate compensation,' the analysis for SB 293 states. The idea of raising pay for judges has bipartisan support. The division comes over how those raises affect funds for retiring lawmakers. Currently, pensions for lawmakers are calculated as a percentage of the base pay for judges. Raising judges pay would also raise retirement benefits for lawmakers. Some House members believed that amounted to unethically approving a benefit for themselves. Their legislation included an amendment to keep decouple lawmaker pensions from judicial base pay, instead keeping it linked to the current level of $140,000. 'I do not believe, speaking for me that this is the right way for us to consider and/or pass increases to our legislative retirement,' Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said Friday, explaining why the House added the amendment. He called on the Senate to accept the House amendment. 'I can tell you that if they want judges to get a pay raise, then they should move to concur with the House changes to Senate Bill 293, and in the interim and next session, we can have and should have a conversation about legislative compensation, including our retirement benefits,' Leach said. When the legislation came before the Senate Friday night, Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, raised a point of order, saying that the amendment was not germane to the legislation. He agreed that legislation to revamp how lawmaker pensions are calculated should happen separately from SB 293. The point of order was sustained, potentially killing SB 293 and pay raises for judges. Senators called on House members to remove the amendment. House members pushed to keep the measure to decouple judicial pay from pensions for lawmakers. With the House and Senate deadlocked, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock weighed in with a potential compromise. On Saturday, he sent a memo to members of the legislature, including proposed language for the bill. Blacklock's proposal would maintain the link between judicial pay and legislator pensions, but the impact of a pay raise approved this session would not immediately affect those pensions. Instead, Blacklock proposes that the next legislature would determine the effect. 'As you know, judicial salaries in Texas currently rank 49th in the Nation – an embarrassment that is making it harder and harder to attract and retain qualified, hard-working judges capable of delivering a high quality of justice to Texas families and businesses across our State,' Blacklock wrote. He added that he fears the long-range impact, should the impasse keep judges from getting a raise. 'If that happens, it is not the judges themselves but our Texas justice system – which should be the envy of the world – that will suffer most, along with the thousands of Texans who seek justice in our courts every day,' Blacklock wrote. Monday afternoon, word of the agreement was announced in the Senate. 'The House and the Senate came together, and the result of the conference committee report and the legislation will lead to the judges getting this raise,' Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said as she laid out the conference committee report. 'I don't think I've ever worked so hard on a bill that wasn't mine,' Sen. Menéndez said, acknowledging the difficulty of the negotiations that started after his point of order, then stretched into the final day of the session. 'We went over and met with our House colleagues, and all 10 of us signed the conference committee report, because every person in the state of Texas recognizes that our judiciary and our judges needed a much needed raise so we can continue to attract competent persons to our judiciary,' he said. Senators did not discuss specifics of the agreement on the floor. In the House, Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas asked Rep. Leach to give further details. 'The bill raises the judicial base pay, salary, 25% to $175,000 along with that, the legislative retirement is linked, at least initially, to that $175,000,' Leach explained. He said going forward, the Texas Ethics Commission will decide how much legislative retirement pay should rise. 'We are requiring the Texas Ethics Commission every five years to adjust the legislative class retirement accordingly, taking into account various factors. Of those factors they're allowed to consider all statewide elected official judges from all branches of government, judicial, legislative and executive,' Leach said, responding to Anchia's question. Leach said the changes allow the legislature to increase judicial pay, and in the future do so without worrying about it affecting the pensions of lawmakers. 'That's, I think, the real big win in this bill,' he concluded. The measure passed 114-26. The legislation now goes to Governor Abbott for approval. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
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.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Texas Supreme Court gives initial win to Paxton in migrant shelter case
(The Texas Tribune) — Attorney General Ken Paxton can proceed with his investigation of an El Paso migrant shelter network he has accused of violating state law by helping undocumented migrants, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday. The ruling does not weigh in on the merits of the case, but says the district court erred in blocking Paxton from obtaining documents and getting an injunction to close the shelter. The case began in February 2024 when the attorney general's office demanded documents from the shelter, Annunciation House, related to its work with immigrants. Annunciation House, which opened its first shelter at a Catholic church nearly 50 years ago, primarily serves people who have been processed and released into the U.S. by federal immigration officials. The shelter's director, Ruben Garcia, communicates regularly with Border Patrol and other federal officials to help find shelter for immigrants who have nowhere else to go while their cases are processed. Here's what you need to know: Officials from the attorney general's Consumer Protection Division arrived at the migrant shelter's door on Feb. 7 and demanded a trove of documents within a day. Annunciation House sued the attorney general's office to delay the release of the records, asking a judge to determine which documents shelter officials were legally allowed to release. Paxton's office filed a countersuit to shutter the shelter network. The attorney general's office claimed the shelter was violating state law by helping people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. The investigation was one of more than 12 instances identified last year by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica in which Paxton's office used the state's consumer protection laws to investigate organizations whose work conflicts in some way with his political views or the views of his conservative base. At least four other organizations that work with immigrants have been targeted. An El Paso judge in July denied Paxton's effort to shut down Annunciation House. State District Judge Francisco Dominguez ruled that the state's claim, 'even if accepted as true, does not establish a violation of those provisions.' He also ruled that the state laws are preempted by federal law and therefore 'unenforceable.' Paxton's office appealed the decision directly to the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court. The appeal drew five letters to the court from outside parties. Among them were two in support of Annunciation House filed by El Paso County and First Liberty Institute, a Texas nonprofit that champions religious freedom. America First Legal Foundation, an organization started by a former Trump administration official to advocate for conservative causes, filed a letter in support of Paxton's office. Paxton's office, which has argued that the shelter network should be closed for violating state laws against human smuggling and operating a stash house, told the court that Annunciation House should be shuttered to send a message to other similar organizations. Ryan Baasch of the attorney general's office argued that Annunciation House 'knowingly and purposely' shelters undocumented persons. 'If all the state is allowed to do is obtain an injunction that says, 'Don't do this unlawful act again,' there's absolutely no deterrent effect,' Baasch said in response to a question from a justice about why an injunction would be insufficient. When one of the justices asked whether the state wanted to deter organizations from exercising their religious activity, Baasch responded: 'Not all, your honor. We want to deter organizations from knowingly and deliberately sheltering illegally present aliens.' Annunciation House's lawyers have characterized the state's arguments as 'utter nonsense,' arguing that Paxton's efforts violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech, association and religion, and the Fourth Amendment, which offers protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Annunciation House lawyer Amy Warr argued that most of the people who the shelter helps have been processed and released by federal immigration authorities while their cases are pending. She said other federal authorities, like the FBI, sometimes bring undocumented people to the shelter who they need as witnesses in criminal cases. 'Law enforcement knows we are there, knows that we house undocumented people,' Warr said. 'If they want to pick somebody up, they come with a warrant and they get the person — or they wait outside until the person comes out. They have full means to do this.' Annunciation House gave five minutes of its oral arguments to First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom organization. Elizabeth Kiernan argued on behalf of the group that Annunciation House's work is motivated by the group's Catholic faith. 'The Catholic church has claimed Annunciation House as one of its own,' Kiernan said. 'If the (Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act) protects anything, it protects this religious charity against outright closure.' In a unanimous opinion, with one justice recused, the Texas Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in granting Annunciation House a permanent inunction against records requests from the Attorney General, and in denying the state's request for a permanent injunction. Should Paxton's office ask for another injunction, 'the trial court must assess it in light of our holdings,' the justices wrote. But they made clear that they were not weighing in on the strength of Paxton's arguments or his chances of winning this case outright. 'It is too early for us, or for any court, to express a view about the merits of the underlying issues,' the unanimous opinion reads. 'Perhaps the case will terminate quickly based on evidentiary or legal grounds; perhaps it will go to trial… We resolve only what we must to dispose of today's appeal.' The case will return now to the district 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Texas Supreme Court sides with AG Ken Paxton in efforts to get records from El Paso's Annunciation House
EL PASO, Texas (EL PASO MATTERS) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton can move forward with his efforts to gather records from El Paso's Annunciation House to investigate his claims that the migrant shelter network was harboring undocumented immigrants, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday. 'We conclude that the trial court erred in its constitutional holdings. 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. Our primary holding is that the attorney general has the constitutional authority to file his proposed quo warranto action, which simply allows the usual litigation process to unfold,' the state's highest civil court said in an 8-0 decision. Quo warranto is a centuries old legal term, with roots in English common law, that requires a person or organization to show what authority they have for exercising a right or ability they hold. In this case, Paxton is challenging Annunciation House's right to do business in Texas. The ruling noted that this is the first time in more than a century that the Texas Supreme Court ruled on a quo warranto proceeding. Ruben Garcia, founder and executive director of Annunciation, told El Paso Matters Friday that the organization is looking at the full ruling and couldn't comment until they have a complete understanding of all its implications. The court overturned a July 2024 ruling by 205th District Judge Francisco Dominguez of El Paso, who ruled that the 'outrageous and intolerable actions' by the Attorney General's Office were unlawful and relied on unconstitutional statutes. Paxton's office appealed the decision directly to the Texas Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in January. Paxton and all the justices on the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans. Dominguez is a Democrat. Justice James Sullivan, who was appointed to the high court last year by Gov. Greg Abbott, did not participate in the decision. Supreme Court justices aren't required to explain reasons for recusing from cases. Annunciation House says it has operated in compliance with all laws and in accordance with Catholic teachings. Federal immigration agencies have long worked with the organization, which has operated for more than 40 years, to provide care for migrants after they are released by federal authorities. The shelter network said Paxton's request would give his office access to confidential records, and violated Annunciation House's religious freedom. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Houston man locked in bitter feud with neighboring renters — but homeowner argues he's harassing paying guests
When Bill Stewart bought his home in Houston's upscale Walden neighborhood, he expected peace and quiet alongside an idyllic lake. What he didn't expect was a battle of signs, arguments with neighbors and a cease-and-desist letter. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) His neighbor, he says, turned a suburban home into a revolving door of short-term renters — and Stewart isn't having it. 'It just seemed like we'd moved into a mob neighborhood of scum,' Stewart told Houston news station KPRC. 'You're concerned for your safety. You go to bed at night and there's 20 people out there. Who are they?' But the property owner, through their attorney, argues they and other short-term renters in the area are well within their rights, and that it's Stewart who's harassing paying guests. Who's right? At the heart of the dispute is whether Stewart's actions crossed a line. Stewart received a cease-and-desist letter alleging that he has harassed guests, recorded them without consent and intimidated them with menacing signage — including signs on his fence that say: 'AIRBNB GO HOME' 'You are DESPISED' and 'You are INTRUDERS in a RESIDENTIAL NEGHBORHOOD' Read more: This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs For passersby, the scene now resembles something out of a bitter political campaign rather than dispute among neighbors in an enviable Houston suburb. For his part, Stewart insists he's simply protecting his home and community. He says the rental has brought strangers into the neighborhood who act as if they're on vacation — not in someone else's backyard. Short-term rentals, typically defined as properties rented for fewer than 30 consecutive days, have exploded in popularity. In the U.S., the short-term vacation rental market was valued at nearly $70 billion in 2024, with an expected growth rate of 7.4% through 2030. But in Texas, such properties remain a legal gray area. Texas has no statewide law banning or comprehensively regulating such rentals. Instead, regulation of the short-term rental industry is left to local governments, resulting in a patchwork of rules across cities. A 2022 Texas Supreme Court ruling found that a homeowners association (HOA) could not use standard 'residential use only' deed restrictions to prohibit short-term rentals. The court found that unless deed restrictions specifically ban short-term rentals, simply requiring 'residential use' does not bar owners from renting their properties for short periods. Attorney Mahsa Monshizadegan told KPRC that disputes arise over short-term rental properties and otherwise 'when one neighbor tries to enforce their own standard of a neighborhood on everyone else' — particularly in large cities like Houston. 'How you resolve the issue matters,' she added. 'All disputes should be resolved through good faith and not like unilateral enforcement of their own demands.' She added that it would have been better if Stewart had approached the owner of the property directly rather than expressing his frustration with the short-term rental guests. Operating a short-term rental may be legal, but it comes with responsibilities. Hosts must be aware of local zoning codes, occupancy limits, noise regulations and tax requirements. Cities like Houston, Austin and San Antonio have passed ordinances to regulate or restrict short-term rentals. In Houston, short-term rental owners must respect the city's rules around noise and sound, neighborhood protection, waste and litter and fire codes. Houston is also launching a hotline people can call with complaints about short-term rentals to have the appropriate city department follow up. Short-term rental hosts in Texas are often responsible for collecting hotel occupancy taxes and registering with the state. Violating those rules could open owners up to fines or lawsuits, but the rules stop short of outright bans. Even with evidence of rule-breaking, the better path may be cooperation rather than conflict. Hosts can ease tension by screening guests carefully, enforcing strict house rules and communicating openly with nearby residents. Sharing a phone number in case of problems or limiting large gatherings can go a long way toward keeping the peace. Meanwhile, neighbors who feel blindsided can try engaging in a civil conversation before turning to lawyers or public protest. If both parties come to the table with goodwill, they may find common ground. Mediation through an HOA or neighborhood group can also provide a neutral space for resolution. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
