The Texas Court of Appeals has denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Powered by People (PxP) and former congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke. The ruling, issued on September 8, 2026, affects how political fundraising activities are regulated in Texas and addresses issues of jurisdiction in ongoing legal disputes.
This case stems from a dispute involving the Texas House of Representatives, where a significant number of Democratic lawmakers left the state in August 2025 to prevent a quorum and block a controversial redistricting plan. The State of Texas subsequently filed a lawsuit against PxP and O’Rourke, claiming they violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by soliciting funds for personal expenses of the absent legislators. The court's decision has implications for political fundraising and the legal landscape surrounding such activities.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the State of Texas, represented by the Attorney General, and the relators, Powered by People and Robert Francis O’Rourke. The dispute began when a group of 54 Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives left the state on August 3, 2025, to block the Republican-led redistricting plan proposed by Governor Abbott. In response, the State filed a lawsuit against PxP and O’Rourke on August 8, 2025, alleging violations of the DTPA.
In the lawsuit, the State contended that PxP and O’Rourke were soliciting donations under false pretenses, claiming the funds would support lawful political activities when, in fact, they were allegedly intended for personal expenses of the absent lawmakers. The State sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent PxP from fundraising, arguing that the actions constituted deceptive trade practices.
On the same day the State filed its lawsuit, PxP initiated a separate legal action in El Paso County, seeking a protective order against the Attorney General’s request for documents related to the fundraising activities. This led to a series of legal maneuvers, including conflicting orders from two district courts, which ultimately brought the matter to the Texas Court of Appeals.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled on the petition for writ of mandamus, addressing four specific orders from the Tarrant County district court. The court noted that the State had nonsuited all claims for injunctive relief on October 22, 2025, which rendered three of the four orders moot. The court stated, “the likelihood of contempt is not sufficiently concrete to avoid mootness here,” emphasizing that the claims for injunctive relief were no longer relevant.
However, the court affirmed one order, modifying the Tarrant County court’s anti-suit TRO that barred PxP from pursuing the same dispute in El Paso County. The court explained that the Tarrant County court had obtained jurisdiction first, even if only by a matter of minutes. The ruling indicated that the court would not intervene further in the matter, as the issues had become moot following the State's decision to drop its claims for injunctive relief.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for political fundraising in Texas, particularly regarding how the DTPA is applied to political activities. The court's decision to vacate the TRO means that PxP and O’Rourke are no longer restricted from fundraising, allowing them to continue their political efforts without the threat of legal repercussions from the State's previous claims. The ruling also clarifies the jurisdictional issues surrounding competing lawsuits, reinforcing the principle that the first court to obtain jurisdiction retains control over the case.
Furthermore, the decision raises questions about the applicability of the DTPA to political fundraising and whether political speech can be subject to consumer protection laws. This case may set a precedent for how future political fundraising efforts are regulated and the extent to which the State can intervene in political activities.
What's Next
While the court's ruling effectively concludes this particular dispute, the State could potentially pursue other legal actions related to civil penalties or quo warranto proceedings against PxP. However, the immediate threat of injunctive relief has been removed, allowing PxP and O’Rourke to proceed with their political activities unimpeded.