Federal judge blocks AG Paxton’s use of Texas law to investigate nonprofits in the state

A federal judge in Texas ruled that a law that Attorney General Ken Paxton often uses to investigate businesses and nonprofits in the state is unconstitutional. The law, known as a “request to investigate,” allows the attorney general to request immediate access to an organization’s records without judicial review.

This case arose after Paxton sent a “request to investigate” to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., a Boeing 737 manufacturer. The request noted that the attorney general’s office is investigating whether Spirit’s practices and procedures, including how it handles deficiencies, inspection changes, diversity policies and employee demographics, comply with the law.

The request ordered Spirit to release documents related to deficiencies disclosure, procedural changes, corrective actions, diversity and inclusion, employee demographics and layoffs, compensation plan and personnel files.

Spirit filed a lawsuit challenging the law, claiming it violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments’ protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by forcing companies to provide immediate access to records without the possibility of judicial review.

Judge Mark Lane of the Western District of Texas then issued a preliminary injunction against Paxton’s use of this tool.

According to the Texas Tribune, the ruling could have a significant impact on the ongoing investigations that Paxton’s office has launched into various organizations, including nonprofit groups that advocate for immigrant and Latino rights.

Critics argue that Paxton has targeted organizations with missions that conflict with his political agenda. Kristin Etter of the Texas Immigration Law Council told the Texas Tribune that the ruling is a victory for Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted government interference.

The law, which dates back to the Texas Constitution of 1876, grants the attorney general broad investigative powers over private companies. But opponents, including legal experts and nonprofit leaders, argue that Paxton’s exercise of that power is an overreach and violates constitutional rights.

Paxton’s office has not yet commented on the ruling or indicated whether it will appeal, according to the Texas Tribune.