HB 78, titled the Texas Sovereignty Act, would create a formal state process for identifying and responding to federal actions the state deems unconstitutional. The bill declares that federal power is limited to enumerated constitutional authorities and establishes a Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Enforcement to review federal laws, agency rules, executive orders, federal court orders, and treaties for constitutionality using originalist sources such as ratifying debates, early congressional practice, and the views of the framers.
If the committee finds a federal action unconstitutional, the finding would go to both chambers of the Legislature for a vote and then to the governor for approval or veto-like consideration. Once declared unconstitutional under the bill, the federal action would have no legal effect in Texas, and state and local governments would be barred from spending public money or resources to implement or enforce it. The bill also authorizes the attorney general to defend the state against such federal actions and gives Texas courts original jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment actions challenging federal actions as unconstitutional.
Impact
HB 78 would add a new chapter to the Texas Government Code and a new declaratory-judgment provision in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. It would create a permanent legislative committee, set procedures for reviewing federal actions, and direct state officials and political subdivisions to treat certain federally declared actions as void within Texas. The bill would also limit state and local cooperation with those federal actions and expressly preserve the ability of officials to interpose against federal conduct they believe violates the U.S. Constitution.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text, the measure is strongly assertive of state sovereignty and constitutional limits on federal power, reflecting a clear pro-state, anti-federal-overreach posture. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or bipartisan support/opposition in the available context. The overall tone of the bill itself suggests it is intended to appeal to supporters of originalist constitutional interpretation and states' rights.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s attempt to let a state legislature and state courts declare federal actions unconstitutional and to deny those actions legal effect in Texas. Critics would likely object that the bill conflicts with federal supremacy and existing judicial authority, while supporters would argue it is a lawful exercise of state sovereignty and a mechanism to resist federal overreach. Another likely dispute is the bill’s originalist methodology, which instructs decision-makers to rely on the framers’ understanding and to discount reliance solely on later court decisions.
Relating to the authority of the legislature to determine that certain federal directives are unconstitutional and to prohibit certain government officers and employees from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of the directive.
Relating to the authority of the legislature or a state court to declare certain federal actions to be unconstitutional federal actions, including the effect and enforcement of such a declaration.
Clarifying that the 1972 ratification by the 62nd Texas Legislature, 2nd Called Session, of the proposed 1972 Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was only valid through March 22, 1979.
Applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of proposing one or more amendments to the constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office of federal officials and members of Congress.
Relating to measures to ensure the safety and welfare of the border region of this state, including protection from ongoing criminal activity and public health threats and the establishment of the Border Protection Unit; creating a criminal offense; creating a civil penalty.
Proposes temporary constitutional amendment allowing State constitutional convention convened to reform system of property taxation to propose statutory changes.
Proposes temporary constitutional amendment allowing State constitutional convention convened to reform system of property taxation to propose statutory changes.
(Constitutional Amendment) Provides for the election of constitutional convention delegates and vote requirements necessary for the adoption of a new constitution (RR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
(Constitutional Amendment) Modifies disposition of certain state revenues through repeal of the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund and deposits of certain revenue streams into the Budget Stabilization Fund (RRF INCREASE GF RV See Note)
(Constitutional Amendment) Provides relative to the application of state monies to the unfunded accrued liability of the Teachers' Retirement System of La. (EN DECREASE SD RV See Note)
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.