Supreme Court
Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc.
- Case number: 24-0573
- Legal category: Constitutional Law
- Subtype: Administrative Subpoenas
- Set for oral argument: January 13, 2025
Case Summary
This direct appeal case concerns a constitutional challenge to the Attorney General’s administrative subpoena powers. Pursuant to its authority to examine books and records of businesses registered in Texas, the Attorney General served an administrative subpoena on Annunciation House, a Catholic volunteer organization, seeking a variety of documents pertaining to individuals who received certain services from Annunciation House.
Annunciation House sought a declaratory judgment against the Attorney General, challenging the administrative subpoena on constitutional grounds, and later filed a no-evidence and traditional motion for summary judgment. The Attorney General cross-filed an application for temporary injunction, leave to file a quo warranto counterclaim, and a plea to the jurisdiction, which, among other things, sought to revoke Annunciation House’s business registration.
The trial court granted Annunciation House’s summary judgment motion, concluding that the administrative subpoena statute was facially unconstitutional and entered injunctive relief against the Attorney General as to future administrative subpoenas served on Annunciation House. In a separate order, the trial court also denied the State’s application for temporary injunction and leave to file an amended petition asserting the quo warranto counterclaim, concluding that two provisions of the Texas penal code that served as the basis for the quo warranto counterclaim were preempted by federal law and that the penal code provisions and the quo warranto statute were unconstitutionally vague in violation of due course of law and therefore unenforceable.
The Attorney General filed a direct appeal with the Court. Oral argument was granted on notation of probable jurisdiction.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.