.jpg)
A recent ruling by a Texas appeals court has added another chapter to an ongoing legal dispute over the balance of power between the state’s attorney general and locally elected prosecutors. At issue is a new rule created by Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office that would require district attorneys in Texas’s largest counties to share extensive prosecutorial data and case files with the attorney general. Two courts have now concluded that Paxton’s office lacks the authority to enforce the rule as written.
On Tuesday, the 15th Court of Appeals ruled that the attorney general does not have the power to compel district attorneys to provide the requested information under the new regulation. The court is composed of three Republican judges and is the second Texas court to reach this conclusion. The ruling sends the case back to district court, where the broader constitutional questions will continue to be litigated.
The decision temporarily halts enforcement of a rule that Paxton has described as a transparency and accountability measure, while district attorneys from several counties argue it represents an unconstitutional expansion of state authority and a significant administrative burden.
What the Appeals Court Decided
The appeals court’s ruling focuses on whether the attorney general has the legal authority to impose the reporting and disclosure requirements laid out in the rule, known as Chapter 56 of the Texas Administrative Code. The court concluded that Paxton’s office does not currently possess that authority.
This follows an earlier decision by Travis County District Judge Catherine Mauzy, who granted a temporary injunction against the rule in May. Mauzy wrote that the district attorneys challenging the rule were likely to prevail at trial and that compliance would require offices to “expend a significant amount of resources, personnel time, and taxpayer funds” to meet the initial reporting deadline.
Because of the appeals court decision, the case now returns to district court, where the injunction remains in place and the underlying legal arguments will be examined more fully.
What the Rule Requires
Chapter 56 was first proposed in September 2024 and took effect in April 2025. It applies only to counties with populations of 400,000 or more — a threshold met by just 13 counties statewide. These counties include many of Texas’s most populous and urban areas.
Under the rule, district attorneys would be required to provide all documents or communications produced or received by their offices, including confidential information. The rule defines “case file” materials broadly, encompassing documents, correspondence, handwritten notes, and other records related to cases, whether or not those cases are actively being prosecuted.
In addition, the rule mandates quarterly reports to the attorney general covering twelve categories of information. These include data on indictments, cases involving police officers, and alleged violations of election law.
To oversee compliance, the rule establishes an “oversight advisory committee” composed of employees from the attorney general’s office. This committee would have the discretion to request entire case files from district attorneys. Failure to comply could be labeled “official misconduct,” a designation that could allow a district judge to remove a district attorney from office.
Why District Attorneys Filed Lawsuits
Seven district attorneys from across the state filed three separate lawsuits in May to block enforcement of Chapter 56. The lawsuits argue that the rule exceeds the attorney general’s authority, violates the Texas Constitution, and would impose significant financial and operational burdens on local prosecutors.
One of the central legal arguments is that the 1985 statute cited by Paxton’s office — which directs district and county attorneys to report information to the attorney general “in the form that the attorney general directs” — does not authorize the sweeping disclosure requirements created by the rule.
The district attorneys also argue that compiling and transmitting the requested materials would require providing “terabytes” of data, diverting resources away from core prosecutorial duties. One lawsuit claims the rule is designed to achieve a “political objective” by burdening certain officials and creating severe penalties for noncompliance.
“These reporting requirements do not make communities safer,” Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales said. “They do not identify trends, improve transparency, or enhance public trust. Instead, they create barriers that divert limited resources away from what matters most, which is prosecuting violent offenders and protecting our community.”
Another lawsuit, filed by district attorneys from Travis and El Paso counties, raises concerns about victim privacy. Those plaintiffs argue the rule could require disclosure of confidential information belonging to crime victims and witnesses, potentially violating state and federal privacy protections.
“The Challenged Rules purport to require an unprecedented level of disclosure of privileged and confidential information from only some of the State’s prosecutors for the sole purpose of unconstitutional oversight,” that lawsuit states.
Paxton’s Rationale for the Rule
Attorney General Paxton has consistently defended Chapter 56 as a transparency and accountability measure. His office has described the rule as a way to “rein in rogue district attorneys” and allow the public to better evaluate how local prosecutors perform their duties.
In a statement responding to one of the lawsuits, Paxton characterized the rule as a “straightforward, common-sense measure” aimed at exposing prosecutors who may be refusing to enforce certain laws.
“It is no surprise that rogue DAs who would rather turn violent criminals loose on the streets than do their jobs are afraid of transparency and accountability,” Paxton said. “This lawsuit is meritless and merely a sad, desperate attempt to conceal information from the public they were sworn to protect.”
Paxton’s office has also downplayed concerns about cost and workload. In the Texas Register, the attorney general’s office stated that it anticipates “minimal, if any, fiscal impact” from the rule. However, the office did not respond to requests for comment following the injunction.
Broader Political and Legal Context
The dispute over Chapter 56 does not exist in isolation. In recent years, Texas lawmakers and statewide officials have taken multiple steps to increase oversight of local prosecutors, particularly in response to accusations that some district attorneys are declining to enforce certain laws.
In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 17, which allows courts to remove district attorneys who refuse to prosecute certain categories of crimes by labeling such refusals as “official misconduct.” Supporters of the bill argued it was necessary to ensure uniform enforcement of state law, while critics warned it could undermine prosecutorial discretion.
That law was used unsuccessfully in 2024 in an attempt to remove Travis County District Attorney José Garza, one of the plaintiffs in the current lawsuits. Republican lawmakers have frequently cited concerns about voter fraud and abortion-related cases when advocating for these oversight mechanisms.
What Happens Next
With the appeals court decision, enforcement of Chapter 56 remains blocked, and the legal fight shifts back to district court. The central questions — whether the attorney general can impose these requirements through administrative rulemaking, and whether they violate constitutional protections such as separation of powers and due process — remain unresolved.
For now, the rulings underscore the legal limits of administrative authority and highlight an ongoing tension in Texas politics: how to balance statewide oversight with local control, and how much discretion elected prosecutors should have in deciding which cases to pursue.
.png)
.jpg&description=Texas appeals court blocks Attorney General’s prosecutorial oversight rule — for now){kind=link}