A judge has issued a ruling to halt a Texas law intended to preempt a broad range of local ordinances just two days before its scheduled implementation, though the question remains whether an appeal would still allow the law to take effect this week.
The state attorney general’s office contends that their immediate appeal keeps the judge’s decision in abeyance and permits the law to become active as initially planned on September 1. However, Houston’s mayor and city attorney, who challenged the law in court, disagree and argue that the ruling blocks the law’s implementation while the appeal is pending.
Dubbed House Bill 2127 or the “Death Star” law by opponents due to its potential to extensively nullify local regulations, the law seeks to override the authority bestowed upon cities with more than 5,000 residents by the Texas Constitution. The City of Houston contested the measure, asserting that it infringes on their local governing powers.
Following a Wednesday hearing, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble of the Travis County District Court granted Houston’s request for summary judgment and halted the preemption law. She also dismissed the state’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, signing a three-page decision shortly thereafter.
“While the judge declared HB 2127 unconstitutional, she did not enjoin enforcement of the law by Texans who are harmed by local ordinances, which HB 2127 preempts,” stated Paige Willey, spokesperson for the AG’s office. “The Office of the Attorney General has also immediately appealed because the ruling is incorrect. This will stay the effect of the court’s declaration pending appeal.”
The preemption measure, supported by business and industry groups, was advanced by Republicans in the statehouse earlier this year. They argued it would spare businesses from navigating a patchwork of local laws. However, it faced staunch opposition from worker advocates and LGBTQ+ rights groups, who maintained that it could override safety measures like Austin and Dallas laws mandating water breaks for outdoor workers and local nondiscrimination ordinances addressing employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The full scope of ordinances impacted by the law remains unclear, contributing to the cities’ argument in court that it is unconstitutionally vague. Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner emphasized that the extent of its reach raises ambiguity and was a factor considered by the judge.
While specific types of Texas court decisions can be directly appealed to the Texas Supreme Court and receive a stay during appeal, this ruling does not fall under that category. According to Turner, the preemption law is blocked from enforcement and declared unconstitutional unless an appeals court determines otherwise.
The law introduces a private enforcement mechanism, enabling businesses and individuals to sue cities to contest ordinances they believe are preempted by state law. It restricts local regulation in eight broadly defined policy areas, only allowing it if specifically authorized by the state: agriculture, finance, insurance, labor, natural resources, property, business and commerce, and occupations.
Houston argued that the Texas Constitution permits the state to preempt local regulations only in cases where a direct conflict exists between state and local laws. El Paso and San Antonio joined Houston’s lawsuit as intervenors, and over 30 local elected officials supported an amicus brief opposing the state’s preemption policy. The state attorney general’s office attempted to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The ultimate fate of the law is likely to hinge on the Texas Supreme Court, where all nine judges are Republican.