Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a sweeping legal opinion Monday declaring diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs unconstitutional across Texas state government and warning that private employers engaging in race- or sex-based policies could face significant legal liability.
The opinion dismantles decades of DEI-related frameworks embedded in Texas law, identifying more than 100 statutes and policies that Paxton says violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the Texas Constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment. It also formally overrules a 1999 legal opinion issued by then–Attorney General John Cornyn, which Paxton argues created legal ambiguity that allowed race- and sex-based government programs to expand unchecked.
The guidance follows prior investigative reporting by The Dallas Express documenting DEI-related concerns at Texas public universities months after the state’s higher-education DEI ban took effect, including job descriptions and institutional language that appeared to conflict with state law.
BREAKING: I just issued a landmark legal opinion dismantling DEI in Texas, declaring decades’ worth of DEI frameworks—memorialized in over 100 woke state laws—unconstitutional and overruling a flawed opinion from then-AG Cornyn that allowed DEI to flourish. pic.twitter.com/ITjcat8uei
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) January 19, 2026
In a statement accompanying the opinion, Paxton framed the move as a return to merit-based governance, invoking the words of Martin Luther King Jr. and calling on public institutions and private employers to immediately dismantle any DEI or affirmative action programs that rely on protected characteristics. “This action to dismantle DEI in Texas helps fulfill the vision articulated by Martin Luther King, Jr. when he dreamed that his children would one day live in a nation where they were judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Paxton said.
The opinion specifically targets historically underutilized business (HUB) and disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) programs, concluding that state contracting preferences based on race or sex amount to unconstitutional discrimination. Paxton argued that such programs improperly use immutable characteristics as proxies for merit and taxpayer stewardship. Programs benefiting veterans and veteran-owned businesses are explicitly excluded.
Yet, Texas’s largest municipalities continue to maintain similar programs. In 2020, the Dallas City Council passed a resolution stating, “It is the policy of the City of Dallas to involve certified Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (M/WBEs) to the greatest extent feasible on the City’s construction, general services, and professional services contracts.”
Similarly, the Texas Department of Transportation continues to reference DBE and HUB participation goals on its website. The website states that DBE “goals are set on all federally funded projects” and “(HUB) Program goals are implemented statewide.”
Paxton’s guidance also challenges statutory requirements mandating racial or gender representation on state boards, commissions, and committees. The opinion rejects the premise that individuals of a particular race or sex can “represent” the views or interests of an entire group, stating that such assumptions reinforce unconstitutional generalizations rejected by federal and state law.
The legal opinion relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended racial considerations in college admissions. Paxton cited the Court’s conclusion that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” arguing the opinion applies broadly across government decision-making and public policy, not solely within higher education.
The opinion’s private-sector warning mirrors broader state and federal scrutiny of DEI- and ESG-driven corporate governance practices, including recent DX reporting on federal action targeting proxy advisors and non-pecuniary voting tied to retirement assets.
Beyond public institutions, the opinion warns that private companies engaging in DEI-driven hiring, promotion, contracting, or governance practices could face exposure under state and federal civil rights and securities laws.
In a separate recent policy announcement from the federal Department of Justice, the agency indicated that it will eliminate “disparate impact” rules from federal civil rights enforcement, requiring proof of intentional discrimination rather than statistical outcomes, DX reported.
Nevertheless, many major employers have stood by their DEI policies. Apple’s website states, “[Inclusion & Diversity] remains one of our greatest strengths.”
Paxton’s warning follows years of heightened reported scrutiny of ESG- and DEI-linked financial practices involving Texas public funds, including divestment actions tied to major asset managers, such as BlackRock, accused of prioritizing political considerations over fiduciary obligations.
Paxton said his office will continue investigating and holding accountable any school district, state agency, local government, or private employer that attempts to use DEI as a “guise for unlawful discrimination, ideological coercion, or the erosion of merit-based decision-making.”
