Harris County funds an Immigrant Legal Services Fund, which pays contracted legal-service providers monthly on a reimbursement basis to represent immigrants facing deportation, and an Immigration Resource Hotline run by the Houston Immigration Legal Services Collaborative, and in October 2025 the Commissioners Court renewed funding for 2026, including $100,000 for the hotline.¹ The only eligibility requirements are that an individual is detained within 50 miles of Harris County, lives or plans to live in the County and earns less than 80% of the area median family income, and the State says the County does not screen clients, does not check criminal histories and lets providers decide on a first-come, first-served basis.² The County says the program, operating since 2021, serves the public purpose of providing legal services to indigent residents, protecting children and families from separation and protecting the local economy, and that it retains controls including invoice review, reporting, audit and claw-back rights and the Commissioners Court's approval of each payment.³

The State sued Harris County and county officials in November 2025 under Article III, section 52(a) of the Constitution and moved for a temporary injunction, and after a hearing at which one county director testified the trial court denied the injunction and the County's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to show authority.¹ The State appealed to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, sought temporary relief under Rule 29.3 on December 30, 2025, and the court denied it in an unsigned February 2026 order, reasoning that the payments were not gratuitous, that the program was not clearly without a public purpose and that the County's contracts gave it sufficient control.² The State petitioned this Court for mandamus and for emergency relief under Rule 52.10.³ On June 26, 2026 the Court granted the Rule 52.10 motion, ordering Harris County not to disburse funds for the two programs until further order, stating that the order is not a determination of the merits, that the court of appeals should proceed to decide the pending appeal and that the mandamus petition remains pending, over a statement by Justices Lehrmann, Bland, and Huddle.⁴

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus with an accompanying Rule 52.10 motion for temporary relief; the Court granted the temporary relief on June 26, 2026, and the petition remains pending, so there is no merits holding yet.⁵

• The State:¹ whether the court of appeals' refusal to grant Rule 29.3 relief was a clear abuse of discretion for which the State has no adequate remedy by appeal.
• Harris County:² whether the State can show the Fifteenth Court clearly erred in applying the three-part Gift Clause test and balancing the harms, and whether the State has an adequate remedy in its direct appeal.

Mandamus lies for a clear abuse of discretion, a court of appeals has no discretion in determining or applying the law, and relief under Rule 29.3 is a kind of injunction that turns on the likely merits and the balance of harms.¹

Whether the County's programs violate the Gift Clauses.

The State (Relator): An expenditure satisfies the Gift Clause only if it is not gratuitous, its predominant objective is a legitimate public purpose and the government retains control over the funds, and the County's programs fail all three prongs because it has ceded control over who benefits to private providers, the benefit accrues to private individuals, the providers and the federal courts, and the programs do not serve a predominant public purpose.¹ In reply, the State says the County lacks sufficient control, the program is gratuitous and it does not serve a public purpose.²

Harris County (Real Parties in Interest): The program passes the Borgelt test because it pays only for legal services actually rendered, which Texas has long treated as a public benefit and not a private gift, its predominant objective of serving indigent residents and protecting children, families and the local economy is a legitimate public purpose, and the eligibility criteria, monthly invoicing, audit rights, and Commissioners Court approval give the County sufficient control.³

Whether temporary relief is warranted and whether the State has another remedy.

The State (Relator): The State suffers a sovereign injury from the County's violation, funds disbursed to individuals cannot feasibly be recouped, and temporary relief is needed to preserve the jurisdiction of this Court and the court of appeals, so the court of appeals abused its discretion by denying it.⁴

Harris County (Real Parties in Interest): Temporary relief would injure the County, the public and third parties, the State has shown no harm in the program's years of operation, and the State has an adequate remedy in its direct appeal.⁵

The State argued that the County can begin disbursing payments at any time and moot the appeal, and that this Court has held ultra vires conduct by local officials automatically harms the State, making emergency relief necessary.¹

The docket shows an amicus curiae brief received March 19, 2026, which is not summarized here.