A Texas state judge in Travis County has deemed a Texas law unconstitutional that aimed to overturn local regulations, ruling on Wednesday, a few days prior to its scheduled commencement.
Dubbed the “Death Star” bill, the law intended to restrict cities’ authority to enact laws inconsistent with state regulations covering various areas like transportation, agriculture, labor, and property codes. Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the law stripped cities of their self-governing capabilities.
Cities under Democratic leadership contended that the law, set to be effective on Friday, represented an attempt by the Republican-led state Legislature to override protections. Interestingly, even conservative-leaning cities lent their support to the lawsuit.
Presenting Houston’s case, Collyn Peddie characterized the law as “ambiguous,” asserting that cities couldn’t reasonably predict which local regulations would breach it.
“This is unprecedented in American jurisprudence. I’ve never seen anything like this,” she remarked. “Even the law professors assisting us have never encountered anything like this.”
The law could potentially nullify local safeguards against discriminatory hiring practices, for instance. If a city aimed to implement more stringent regulations on payday lending, it would require legislative approval to do so lawfully.
Additionally, the law empowers residents to litigate against a city for policies incongruent with state laws.
Peddie contended that the threat of litigation would compel cities to meticulously review their regulations to identify what adhered to the law or cease the enforcement of local laws entirely.
“The city is stating that we are the ones responsible for implementing the statute, and we must understand its content,” she stated. “Cities need to comprehend what they are enforcing and be capable of contesting an ambiguous law.”
This legislation is part of a broader pattern of GOP lawmakers endeavoring to revoke policies initiated by predominantly Democratic leaders. Over the past decade, rules concerning ride-hailing regulations, paid sick leave, and fracking bans within city limits have all been targets of legislative action.
Attorneys representing the Texas attorney general argued, albeit unsuccessfully, that the Texas Supreme Court had previously favored the state in analogous situations, citing a 2018 ruling in a lawsuit concerning Laredo’s single-use plastic bag ban.
Charles Eldred, representing the state, mentioned, “This issue will inevitably resurface soon. It’s not accurate that on September 2, cities must stop enforcing their ordinances. Depending on the ordinance and relevant state laws, this might be a prudent choice. However, the statute doesn’t specify any additional penalties.”
Peddie argued that the law’s potential penalties mirror the state’s abortion ban: establishing consequences while relying on lawsuits for enforcement.
The state’s arguments did not sway Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, who endorsed the cities’ assertions as correct.
Following the ruling, the attorney general’s office promptly appealed to the Texas Third Court of Appeals. Paige Willey, an office spokesperson, argued that despite the judge’s decision, Texans would still have the ability to challenge local rules via lawsuits.