AUSTIN, Texas (April 3, 2025) – A House committee passed the Texas Sovereignty Act, a bill that would create a state process for reviewing federal laws and end state cooperation with enforcement of any determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process could set the stage to effectively block the enforcement of some federal laws and acts in the Lone Star State.
Rep. Cecil Bell and five cosponsors filed House Bill 796 (HB796). The legislation would create the Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Enforcement, which would review federal laws, agency rules and regulations, executive orders, federal court decisions, and treaties “that challenge the sovereignty of the state and of the people to determine if the federal action is unconstitutional.”
The legislation defines specific criteria by which the committee would review federal acts.
When reviewing a federal action, the committee shall consider the plain reading and reasoning of the text of the United States Constitution and the understood definitions at the time of the framing and construction of the Constitution by our forefathers before making a final declaration of constitutionality.
Under the proposed law, if the committee determines a federal action violates the Constitution, the full House and Senate would then vote on that determination. The passage of the resolution and the governor’s signature would constitute an official determination of unconstitutionality and would prohibit state enforcement of the act.
a) A federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action under Section 394.004 has no legal effect in this state and may not be recognized by this state or a political subdivision of this state as having legal effect.
(b) The state and a political subdivision of the state may not spend public money or resources or incur public debt to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.
(c) A person authorized to enforce the laws of this state may enforce those laws, including Section 39.03, Penal Code, against a person who attempts to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.
On April 2, the House State Affairs Committee passed HB796 by an 8-5 vote.
LEGAL BASIS
Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing any federal action.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to stop federal overreach because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.
This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth, put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.
Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB796 can now move to the full House for further consideration.
