Texas Attorney General’s weekly rally for September 20 – Corridor News
TThe responsibilities of the Attorney General’s office are to serve as legal advisor to all state government boards and agencies, to provide legal opinions at the request of the governor, heads of state agencies and other officials and agencies, in accordance with Texas laws.
Texas AG sits as an ex-officio member of state committees and commissions and defends state law challenges and lawsuits against state agencies and individual state employees.
Many Texans turn to the attorney general’s office for advice on disputes and legal issues. The agency receives hundreds of letters, phone calls and visits every week on crime victim compensation, child support, nursing home abuse, possible consumer fraud and other topics.
To learn more about the Texas Attorney General, visit the official website at https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/.
Attorney General Paxton Joins Coalition of 10 States to Regulate Big Tech Censorship
AUSTIN – Attorney General Paxton led a coalition of 10 states that filed an amicus brief in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Florida law that regulates censorship on Big Tech platforms by requiring them to apply their content moderation practices consistently and provide information to affected users.
The brief explains why the relevant provisions of Florida law are fully consistent with the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans’ right to freedom of speech, expression, and political belief.
“The regulation of big tech censorship will inevitably suppress the ideas and beliefs of millions of Americans,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said. “I will defend the First Amendment and ensure that Conservative voices have the right to be heard. Big tech doesn’t have the power to control the expressions of people they just don’t agree with politically. “
Governor Abbott recently signed Texas House Bill 20 – similar to Florida law – in that it aims to regulate “Big Tech”.
HB 20 allows any Texas resident banned from social media for their political beliefs to sue the social media platform that censored them.
The attorney general could sue on behalf of one or more Texas residents banned or blocked by a platform because of discrimination based on their political views.
Read the full Amicus note here.
Paxton sues to stop Biden administration’s attempt to control toilet and language use in Texas
AUSTIN – Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration to stop the June 15 guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
This directive requires employers to allow exceptions on the use of bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, dress codes and even personal pronouns based on the subjective gender identity of their employees.
These illegal guidelines increase the scope of liability of all employers, including the state of Texas as an employer.
In our system, states have the sovereign right to adopt their own policies regarding things like bathroom use, and this is an extreme federal excess on the part of the federal government.
“States should be able to choose the privacy of their employers over subjective gender views, and these illegal guidelines put many women and children at risk,” said Attorney General Paxton. “If the Biden administration thinks it can force states to conform to their political agenda, my office will stand up against their sweeping attempt at social change. These backdoor attempts to force companies, including the state of Texas, to align with their beliefs are unacceptable. “
Read the lawsuit here.
Paxton joins coalition to challenge President Biden’s excessive mandate on vaccines for private sector workers
AUSTIN – Attorney General Ken Paxton has joined a multi-state coalition to stop President Biden from illegally forcing millions of private sector employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly tests as a condition for keep their jobs – whether or not they work remotely, have religious objections or health concerns about receiving the vaccine, or have already gained natural immunity following a cure from the virus.
In addition, the federal government intends to constrain this unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion by federal authority into an area normally subject to state law through a “temporary emergency rule” to be issued. as an occupational safety issue by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA) bureaucracy.
Courts have historically restricted the use of such standards as being contrary to the constitutional separation of powers – even when, unlike here, the danger arises in the employee’s workplace.
Read the letter here.
Summary of official request RQ-0425-KP
Re: If the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act prohibits a Texas transmission service provider from entering into interconnection agreements with entities owned by Chinese citizens or headquartered in China or with entities that lease assets to a such entity and related issues
Summary of official opinion
The Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act, which is found in Chapter 113 of the Business and Commercial Code, prohibits contracts or other agreements with certain foreign companies in certain circumstances relating to critical infrastructure in that state. Whether federal law separately implies the ability of entities to enter into such contracts is a question of fact and is not addressed by this opinion.
Under the Act, a generation interconnection agreement is an agreement relating to critical infrastructure that grants a company direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure. Section 113.002 prohibits a production interconnection agreement between a transmission service provider and a company that is a wholly or majority owned subsidiary of a Chinese company.
Under the standard generation interconnection agreement promulgated by ERCOT, a company entering into an agreement with a transmission service provider must own and operate the proposed generation resource, and a non-participating lessee would not meet such a requirement. .
A land lease agreement between a developer of production resources and a landowner could allow direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure in such a way that it would be prohibited by law in the circumstances you describe. .
Summary of official request RQ-0411-KP
Re: Does House Bill 1525 require school districts to accept PTA donations to fund additional educational staff positions and use funds donated for that purpose for the 2021-2022 school year.
Summary of official opinion
Section 11.156 (c) of the Education Code, as enacted by Internal Bill 1525, requires a school district to accept and spend a donation from a designated parent-teacher organization or association to fund a post of additional teaching staff on a specified campus under specified circumstances. .
Internal Bill 1525 provides that section 11.156 (c) comes into force on September 1, 2021. As of that date, a school district has a duty to accept and spend certain donations once all of the conditions specified in the paragraph 11.156 (c) are met. , namely that (1) the donation from a parent-teacher organization or association recognized by the district, (2) the donation is intended to fund additional educational staff positions on a school campus, and (3 ) the campus has directed spending for its designated purpose and has specified the time period in which the donation is to be spent. As a result, House Bill 1525 requires a district to spend donations received for the 2021-2022 school year to the extent that the donations meet all of the conditions of section 11.156 (c).
Summary of official request RQ-0429-KP
Re: Whether Executive Order GA-38 creates a right, privilege, power, or immunity with respect to the ability of Texans not to wear face coverings.
Summary of official opinion
Executive Order GA-38 generally prohibits any government entity, including a county, city, school district, or public health authority, from requiring anyone to wear a face covering or forcing another person to wear a face cover.
Article 39.03 of the Penal Code makes it an offense for an “official acting under the guise of his office or employment” to refuse or intentionally obstruct “another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right , privilege, power or immunity, knowing one’s conduct is illegal. ”
Executive Order GA-38 creates immunity for Texans so that they are not subject to most local government mandates that require face coverings.
A court could find, on certain facts, that a government official intentionally denying an individual’s immunity by applying an illegal warrant to cover the face is in violation of article 39.03 of the Penal Code.