Estimated Time to Read: 5 minutes
In the latest clash between Texas state officials and the City of Austin, Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit accusing the city of illegally using taxpayer money to fund abortion-related travel. The lawsuit, filed in a Travis County district court, claims that Austin’s newly approved 2024-2025 budget includes a $400,000 “Reproductive Health Grant,” designed to cover travel expenses for residents seeking out-of-state abortions. Paxton’s lawsuit aims to stop what he calls an “illegal abortion-procurement scheme,” escalating a legal battle that could set a precedent for other cities in Texas and beyond.
The Legal Argument: Violating the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause
At the heart of Paxton’s case is the claim that Austin’s abortion travel fund violates the “Gift Clause” of the Texas Constitution. According to the Texas Constitution, local governments are prohibited from granting public money to private entities or individuals without ensuring that the expenditure serves a clear public purpose and retains government control over how the funds are used. Specifically, Paxton’s lawsuit argues that using public funds to help individuals obtain out-of-state abortions constitutes a misuse of taxpayer money, because it directly benefits private individuals rather than serving a valid public purpose. In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, Paxton said,
“No city in Texas has the authority to spend taxpayer money in this manner. In this case, the City of Austin is illegally seeking to use public funding to support travel expenses for out-of-state abortions. The Texas Constitution prohibits governmental entities from doing so.”
The Texas Supreme Court has reinforced this interpretation of the Gift Clause in previous rulings, stating that local governments cannot use taxpayer money to support private or individual causes without retaining some form of public oversight and control. Paxton’s argument hinges on this legal precedent, asserting that Austin’s Reproductive Health Grant fund fails to meet these constitutional standards.
Previous Legal Battles and the Broader Political Implications
This is not the first time Austin’s approach to abortion funding has faced legal scrutiny. In fact, former Austin City Council member Don Zimmerman has already sued the city over the same provision earlier this year, and a similar lawsuit was filed in 2019. While a Travis County district judge ruled against Zimmerman in the previous case, Paxton’s lawsuit brings renewed attention and political weight to the issue.
Austin Mayor Kirk Watson quickly responded to Paxton’s lawsuit, characterizing it as a politically motivated attack on women’s rights. Watson defended the city’s decision to establish the abortion travel fund, framing it as a necessary service for women who no longer have access to legal abortions within the state.
“Ken Paxton is once again exploiting the great power of his office to attack and undermine the fundamental rights of women and try to score a few political points in the process,. I’m proud the Austin City Council is supporting Austin women as they make their own decisions about their body, their family, their health, their happiness, and their quality of life.”
The political divide between Austin and the state government is emblematic of a broader ideological clash between conservative Texas officials and more liberal urban centers like Austin. While the state has passed increasingly restrictive abortion laws, Austin has positioned itself as a city that defies those measures, providing resources to help residents circumvent Texas’ abortion bans. In this context, the legal battle over the Reproductive Health Grant is as much about the political identity of Austin as it is about the specific issue of abortion.
Potential Consequences for Other Texas Cities
Paxton’s lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for other Texas cities considering similar policies. While Austin is currently the only city with an explicit abortion travel fund in its budget, the outcome of this case could set a precedent that either encourages or deters other cities from adopting similar measures. If Paxton is successful, it could embolden conservative lawmakers to pursue additional lawsuits or legislative actions aimed at curbing local efforts to support abortion access. On the other hand, if Austin prevails, it might inspire more progressive cities to implement their own versions of the Reproductive Health Grant.
Given the Texas Legislature’s firm opposition to abortion, Austin’s defiance represents a significant test of local versus state authority. The legal outcome of this case may clarify the limits of municipal power when it comes to contentious issues like abortion, potentially reshaping the relationship between city governments and state oversight.
Conclusion: A Legal Showdown with Far-Reaching Implications
Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against the City of Austin represents the latest escalation in the ongoing battle over abortion in Texas. By challenging Austin’s Reproductive Health Grant, Paxton is seeking to halt one of the few remaining avenues for Texans seeking abortion access in a state where the procedure is otherwise severely restricted. The case is likely to serve as a bellwether for future legal battles over the use of taxpayer dollars to support abortion-related services, and its outcome could shape the political landscape not just in Austin, but across Texas and potentially beyond.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
