The Texas Court of Appeals recently reversed a temporary injunction against Maria Margarita Rojas and her associated clinics, which include Clinica Latinoamericana and others. This decision comes after the State of Texas sought to impose restrictions on Rojas and her clinics based on allegations of illegal abortions and practicing medicine without a license. The ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of evidence standards in legal proceedings.
The case, filed under docket number 15-25-00100-CV, stems from an investigation by the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit within the Texas Attorney General's Office. The investigation began in 2025 after an anonymous complaint suggested that abortions were being performed at one of Rojas's clinics. Following the investigation, Rojas was arrested, and the State filed a civil suit against her and the clinics shortly thereafter.
The State's civil suit aimed to impose civil penalties and obtain both temporary and permanent injunctions against Rojas and her clinics, alleging violations of the Texas Human Life Protection Act (HLPA) and the Texas Medical Practice Act (MPA). The HLPA prohibits performing abortions, while the MPA requires individuals to hold a medical license to practice medicine in Texas. The case escalated quickly after Rojas's arrest, leading to the civil suit filed just three days later.
During the temporary injunction hearing, the State presented evidence, including arrest warrants and probable-cause affidavits from the criminal case against Rojas. However, Rojas and her clinics objected to the admission of these documents, arguing they were hearsay and not properly authenticated. The trial court admitted the documents but excluded certain hearsay statements. Ultimately, the court granted the temporary injunction, restricting Rojas and her clinics from practicing medicine or performing abortions.
On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion by admitting the probable-cause affidavits as evidence. The court noted that, under Texas law, affidavits cannot be used as evidence in support of a temporary injunction unless there is an agreement between the parties. Since Rojas and her clinics objected to the affidavits, the court concluded that the trial court should not have considered them.
The court ruled, "Without the probable-cause affidavits, the remaining evidence in the record does not reasonably support the State’s allegations that abortions have been performed at the Clinics and, consequently, that the State has a 'probable right to relief.'"
As a result, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's temporary injunction order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The judges involved in the decision included Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.
This ruling has important implications for Rojas, her clinics, and similar cases in Texas. It underscores the necessity for the State to present sufficient evidence when seeking temporary injunctions, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as illegal abortions and practicing medicine without a license. The decision may also influence how future cases are handled, emphasizing the need for clear and admissible evidence in legal proceedings.
Moving forward, the case may still proceed in the lower courts. Rojas and her clinics may face further legal battles regarding the allegations made against them, and the State could potentially appeal the ruling or pursue other legal avenues. However, the reversal of the temporary injunction provides Rojas and her clinics with a temporary reprieve from the restrictions imposed by the State.