Paxton Suspends Pursuit of Migrant Nonprofits

As you know, we have followed the lazy-eyed cowboy’s efforts to shut down migrant serving nonprofits in Texas.  And his particular focus on migrant serving nonprofits that conduct voter registration drives. And Texas courts’ routine rejection of those efforts as unsupported by law or evidence.  And a federal magistrate’s recent opinion in an entirely unrelated case that the administrative subpoena statute the cowboy uses for harassment is unconstitutional.  And then finally, that the  district court opinion would throw a big wrench in the migrant nonprofit harassment gears. 

Well sure enough, the lazy eyed cowboy suspended his pursuit of migrant nonprofits pending final resolution of the statute’s constitutionality on appeal.  He was forced to.  Why, that ornery cuss would just as soon wipe his butt with the whole dang Constitution if he could.  Or if that’s what it took to be appointed US Attorney in a hoped for  Trump administration.  Here is part of the “Agreed Motion to Stay Proceedings:”

This lawsuit involves an as-applied challenge to the Request to Examine (RTE) that was served to Plaintiff Jolt Initiative, Inc. on August 31, 2024, by the Attorney General pursuant to Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 12.151, et. seq. On October 11, 2024, in Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. v. Paxton (24-cv-00472), the Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Lane heard competing motions for summary judgment regarding a facial challenge to the RTE statute relied upon by the Attorney General in this case. At the conclusion of that hearing, Magistrate Judge Lane directed Spirit Aerosystems to draft a proposed order finding the statute unconstitutional. Per 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Attorney General expects the Magistrate’s report and recommendation to be submitted presently to this Court for final disposition. Consequently, the Parties here agree to suspend all proceedings pending this Court’s decision in Spirit, and any subsequent appeals which may be brought in that matter. The Parties agree that a stay is the most reasonable course of action to preserve judicial economy, avoid conflicting judicial opinions, and maintain fairness. This case should be stayed until further order of the Court, whether on motion from either Party or on the Court’s own motion. The Parties agree that the RTE response deadline will be extended until 14 days after the stay is lifted.

darryll k. jones