The Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) on Wednesday denied Attorney General Ken Paxton’s emergency request to revive his effort to block former Congressman Beto O’Rourke from raising money for Texas Democrats, marking the latest turn in a heated legal battle over last summer’s quorum break at the Legislature.
Paxton had asked the state’s high court to overturn a ruling from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals that temporarily halted his ability to enforce a restraining order against O’Rourke and his political action committee, Powered by People. That appeals court order effectively froze a scheduled hearing where Paxton hoped to argue that O’Rourke should be held in contempt for continuing fundraising activities.
In a short, one-page order, SCOTX denied Paxton’s petition for emergency relief. The justices wrote, “The petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ expedited briefing schedule is denied. The emergency motion for temporary relief is dismissed as moot.”
The ruling leaves Paxton unable to take immediate action against O’Rourke as the broader case plays out.
The Dispute’s Origins
The conflict traces back to July 30, when Paxton launched an investigation into O’Rourke’s PAC for allegedly violating state bribery laws. Powered by People had raised funds to support Democratic members of the Texas House who fled to Washington, D.C., in an effort to block a mid-decade congressional redistricting plan pushed by Republicans.
Two days later, Paxton filed suit in Tarrant County district court, where a judge granted him a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking O’Rourke and his PAC from further fundraising related to the Democrats’ walkout. A follow-up hearing was set for September 2.
But when O’Rourke sought emergency relief from the appeals court, that hearing was put on hold—prompting Paxton’s escalation to the Supreme Court.
Paxton vs. O’Rourke
The Attorney General’s office has accused O’Rourke of orchestrating what it called a “fraudulent fundraising scheme,” arguing that contributions amounted to bribery for lawmakers who broke quorum. In a press release, Paxton’s office blasted the appeals court’s intervention as “historically unprecedented” and warned that O’Rourke would resume harmful activities while the state’s hands were tied.
O’Rourke, for his part, has rejected Paxton’s claims and fought back in court. He filed a separate lawsuit in El Paso seeking to block Paxton’s actions, though his request for a TRO there was denied. Paxton later amended his petition to seek revocation of Powered by People’s charter to operate in Texas.
Broader Context
The Democrats who left Texas in July have since returned, and the redistricting plan they sought to block ultimately passed. Still, the legal standoff between the state’s top Republican lawyer and one of its most prominent Democratic figures remains unresolved.
The Supreme Court’s denial of Paxton’s emergency request does not end the case, but it delays his attempt to impose penalties on O’Rourke until the lower courts finish their review.
