Texas voters have nearly closed one of MAGA’s most useful avenues for turning political grievances into federal lawsuits: the Texas attorney general’s office. The conservative judges remain. Private organizations can still sue. But Texas will no longer be available on the same terms as a willing plaintiff, legal sponsor and source of public money.
“The Texas AG’s office has been operating as the private law firm of the MAGA movement,” Texas Attorney General-elect Nathan Johnson said in an interview. “No more.”
… Over the past decade, Republican attorneys general have advanced conservative causes by challenging federal regulations, restricting gender-affirming care, curbing diversity initiatives and expanding gun access.
The Texas office, in particular, served as a command center for conservative legal challenges, leveraging its resources and elite staff to sue Democratic administrations.
… “The Texas attorney general office was never conceived to be an extension of federal immigration enforcement,” he said. “And to the extent that they were detracting from the proper function of this office, we’re going to have a change of plans.”
Johnson is prepared to join multistate lawsuits against what he called federal abuse of power, pointing to potential regulatory battles with the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He also plans to refocus the office on antitrust and consumer protection, while rebuilding a staff depleted by high turnover under Paxton.
That is a national consequence of Nathan Johnson’s election as attorney general. Johnson told Bloomberg that he intends to review Ken Paxton’s pending litigation and terminate cases brought for “political stuntery.” The practical test will come when his administration decides which cases to pursue, withdraw, or resolve. Bloomberg reported his plans here. news.bgov.com
Paxton’s operation depended on more than finding a receptive judge. It also depended on bringing the state itself into court. Texas could claim injuries to its finances, institutions or governmental responsibilities that an ordinary citizen cannot simply adopt. Losing that plaintiff can mean losing the legal foundation for a case, even when private lawyers remain eager to fight it.
Two Supreme Court decisions on the same day demonstrated the difference. In Department of Education v. Brown, two private borrowers challenging Biden’s student-loan relief lacked standing, and the Court ordered their case dismissed. In Biden v. Nebraska, Missouri established standing through financial injury to its state-created loan servicer, MOHELA, and the Court reached the merits. The same federal program faced different challengers with different legal interests—and different results at the courthouse door. www.supremecourt.gov
A favorable lower court cannot guarantee that a weak plaintiff will survive review. Private anti-abortion doctors and organizations obtained favorable rulings in their challenge to the FDA’s handling of mifepristone. In 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that they lacked standing. Their opposition to abortion did not establish that the challenged FDA actions injured them. The ruling provides another concrete example. www.law.cornell.edu
The Amarillo courtroom will remain open, but access still requires a legally viable case. Its published assignment order directs new cases to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. A challenger still needs standing and a valid basis for filing in the district. Another Republican attorney general cannot simply replace Texas’s name with another state’s and assume the same access. The assignment order and federal venue law govern different parts of that process. www.txnd.uscourts.gov
Other litigants will try to fill the opening. Republican states may continue cases in which they have their own standing. Private organizations may find genuinely injured plaintiffs who can sue in Texas. Some private enforcement actions in state court can proceed independently of the attorney general. Those possibilities mean this election will not end conservative litigation; they do not make Texas’s departure inconsequential. www.law.cornell.edu
Existing lawsuits will require work to unwind. An election does not automatically dismiss a case, eliminate other plaintiffs or erase earlier rulings. Depending on the case’s stage, dismissal can require agreement or a court order. Johnson’s decisions will therefore matter more than any victory-night promise. www.law.cornell.edu
MAGA is losing the ability to count on Texas’s attorney general to supply the state’s name, legal resources and governmental interests for its litigation strategy. Another organization can hire lawyers. It cannot hire its way into being the state of Texas.
One important avenue has been nearly shut down by the voters. How much of it closes in practice will become clear when Johnson takes office and Texas begins deciding which fights it will stop financing.
