A Texas appeals court ruled this week that Attorney General Ken Paxton does not have the authority to enforce a rule requiring large counties to provide detailed prosecutorial data and case materials to his office.
In a decision issued Tuesday, the 15th Court of Appeals concluded Paxton’s office exceeded its statutory authority when it adopted a regulation compelling district attorneys in the state’s most populous counties to submit extensive reports and internal records to the attorney general.
The ruling marks the second time a Texas court has blocked the rule. A Travis County district court previously issued a temporary injunction preventing enforcement, which remains in place as the case returns to the trial court.
What The Rule Would Have Required
The rule, known as Chapter 56, took effect in April and applied only to counties with populations of 400,000 or more — a threshold that currently includes 13 counties statewide.
Under the rule, district attorneys would have been required to submit quarterly reports to the attorney general detailing a broad range of prosecutorial decisions. Those reports included data on indictments of peace officers, prosecutions under the Texas Election Code, cases involving the discharge of a firearm, and instances in which arrests for violent crimes did not result in indictments or were resolved through deferred prosecution or dismissed charges.
The rule also authorized the attorney general’s Oversight Advisory Committee to request full case files — including correspondence, internal notes, and other documentation — in any criminal matter the committee determined implicated “the interests of the state.” In addition, prosecutors would have been required to turn over communications with federal agencies and nonprofit organizations related to charging decisions, as well as internal correspondence tied to assistant prosecutors’ resignations following complaint processes.
The reporting requirements included retroactive disclosure obligations dating back to January 1, 2021, unless a district attorney’s office qualified for limited affidavit-based exceptions.
Lawsuits From District Attorneys
District attorneys from multiple counties sued to block the rule, arguing it violated the Texas Constitution, exceeded the attorney general’s authority, and required disclosure of confidential and privileged information.
Three lawsuits were filed in May by prosecutors from Travis and El Paso counties; Harris, Dallas, and Bexar counties; and Fort Bend and Williamson counties. In granting the initial injunction, Travis County District Judge Catherine Mauzy wrote that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and that complying with the rule would require offices to expend significant resources, personnel time, and taxpayer funds.
County officials also argued the statute Paxton cited to justify the rule — a 1985 law directing prosecutors to report information to the attorney general “in the form that the attorney general directs” — does not authorize the sweeping oversight framework created by Chapter 56.
Competing Views On Oversight
Paxton has defended the rule as a transparency measure, arguing it would allow the public to better evaluate the performance of locally elected prosecutors and impose accountability on those accused of declining to prosecute certain crimes.
District attorneys counter that the rule would divert resources away from prosecuting offenders and expose sensitive victim and case information. Several lawsuits also argue the rule improperly expands the definition of official misconduct and violates separation-of-powers protections in the Texas Constitution.
Broader State Context
The ruling comes amid broader efforts by state leaders to expand oversight of local prosecutors. As previously reported by The Dallas Express, Gov. Greg Abbott has urged lawmakers to create a “chief state prosecutor” position that could bypass district attorneys who decline to pursue certain cases. Legal observers have raised similar constitutional questions about the limits of state authority over locally elected prosecutors.
With the appeals court decision, enforcement of Paxton’s data-collection rule remains on hold while litigation continues in district court.
