A Texas judge on Friday issued a temporary restraining order preventing former congressman Beto O’Rourke and his nonprofit from providing financial support to state Democrats who left Texas to delay a contentious redistricting plan. The decision, handed down in response to a suit brought by Attorney General Ken Paxton, represents an immediate legal setback for O’Rourke’s organization and escalates a bitter partisan fight over the mechanics of Texas politics.
Tarrant County District Judge Megan Fahey, a Republican appointee, found enough evidence to temporarily bar Powered by People — the progressive nonprofit O’Rourke leads — from continuing what the state characterized as “unlawful fundraising practices” to underwrite the lawmakers’ flight. The order specifically prohibits the group from raising money and using those funds to provide travel, lodging, logistical support, or to pay daily fines incurred by legislators who absent themselves to break quorum.
State: Fundraising Crossed Legal Lines
In filings presented to the court, Paxton’s office argued that Powered by People solicited and collected contributions that were then used to cover expenses directly tied to political activity — namely sustaining the lawmakers who left the state to stall the GOP’s mid-decade redistricting effort. Texas law imposes strict rules on political fundraising and how campaign or political-action money may be used, the complaint contends, and the attorney general alleged those rules were violated when donors’ contributions allegedly subsidized personal expenses and fines.
“Defendants have and will continue to engage in unlawful fundraising practices and utilization of political funds in a manner that either directly violates or causes Texas Democratic Legislators to violate [the law],” Judge Fahey wrote in her temporary order. She added that consumers — meaning donors — had suffered “irreparable harm” because their contributions were being diverted to purposes they were not informed of or that run afoul of state statutes.
The emergency order followed Paxton’s petition asking a court to halt the nonprofit’s activities while the state pursues further legal remedies. The restraining order is temporary in nature; it preserves the status quo while the litigation proceeds and gives the court time to consider the merits of the state’s claims before a more durable injunction is issued or denied.
O’Rourke Vows to Fight Back
Shortly after the ruling, O’Rourke pushed back forcefully, characterizing the filing as a politically motivated attempt to suppress his group’s work. In a statement he accused Paxton of seeking to “shut down” Powered by People precisely because its volunteers organize on behalf of voting rights and to block what O’Rourke called a partisan power grab.
“They want to make examples out of those who fight so that others won’t,” O’Rourke said, promising to continue the fight. He announced plans to appear at a rally in Fort Worth opposing the redistricting map, and vowed that the restraining order would not silence his movement.
O’Rourke’s allies framed the dispute as yet another front in a larger battle over voting access and representation in Texas. Supporters argue that the use of a nonprofit to support lawmakers in exile is a legitimate form of political organizing and that donors should be free to contribute to such efforts. They vowed to challenge the court’s temporary order and to press the case in higher courts if necessary.
Paxton: Enforcing the Law
Attorney General Ken Paxton responded to the judge’s decision with a terse statement. “Cry more, lib,” he wrote — a pithy public remark that echoed the partisan tenor of the fight. Paxton’s office framed the case as an enforcement matter: state law sets limits on the use of political contributions and requires transparency about how donated funds are spent. When those rules are broken, Paxton argued, the state has a duty to step in.
Paxton and other Republican leaders have accused the fleeing Democrats of engineering a stunt that undermines the ordinary legislative process. Republicans say the walkout was intended to cripple the ability of the Legislature to pass a map they argue is needed to reflect population shifts — and that armed with outside money, the lawmakers were able to sustain their absence in violation of the law.
Legal and Political Stakes
The case raises several thorny legal questions that the courts will now have to resolve: What precisely counts as an acceptable use of funds raised by political nonprofits? When does support for political actors cross the line into illegal subsidization of private expenses? And how should courts balance the First Amendment rights of organizers and donors against state regulatory interests designed to ensure transparent, lawful governance?
Legal analysts note the temporary restraining order is a short-term remedy; it does not resolve the underlying disputes. Fahey’s order stops certain activities while the state’s broader claims are litigated. Either side may appeal, and the matter could wind its way through the state court system — or even federal courts — before producing a final answer.
Politically, the litigation comes at a sensitive moment. Texas Republicans are pursuing a redistricting plan that would redraw congressional lines in ways that GOP leaders say respond to population changes and that Democrats argue are an effort to entrench Republican power. For Democrats, sustaining the walkout — and the fundraising that helped keep lawmakers away from the Capitol — was a tactical bid to block the map’s passage. Now, the fundraising that enabled that tactic is itself the subject of scrutiny and litigation.
What Comes Next
With the temporary restraining order in place, Powered by People must immediately pause the contested activities the judge specified. The organization’s leadership has vowed to fight the order, and the state is likely to pursue a permanent injunction if the court finds the state’s legal arguments persuasive.
Observers expect both legal briefs and heated political commentary in the days ahead. The outcome could influence not only the immediate redistricting fight in Texas but also broader questions about how outside funding can be used in partisan battles — and what limits, if any, states may place on such activity.
For now, the restraining order is a clear win for Paxton and a setback for O’Rourke and the Democrats who relied on outside organizing to alter the legislative math. But the case is far from over: the courtroom — and perhaps higher courts — will likely decide whether the temporary halt becomes a permanent bar.