Ken Paxton Targets Texas Immigration Nonprofits with Legal Actions

(EL PASO, TEXAS) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has expanded a sweeping legal campaign against immigration nonprofits, pressing investigations and lawsuits that have tested the limits of state power over groups providing shelter, legal aid, and humanitarian support along the border. On June 1, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court allowed his investigation into Annunciation House in El Paso to proceed, a pivotal ruling that followed months of courtroom setbacks for Paxton as lower-court judges blocked efforts to shut down charities or force rapid disclosure of confidential records. The ruling has reignited anxiety among service providers already reeling from subpoenas, a civil investigative demand, and attempts to strip their nonprofit status.

The aggressive strategy has focused on organizations across Texas, including Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, Annunciation House, FIEL Houston, Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in McAllen, and Team Brownsville. Paxton’s office has accused some of “aiding illegal immigration,” pursued allegations of “human smuggling,” and invoked consumer protection statutes to scrutinize operations. At Las Americas, staff said tensions rose after the group received a civil investigative demand on September 4, 2024 that sought details about its migrant sponsorship work for people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—a pathway tied to federal processes that allow vetted individuals to enter the United States with approval.

“People have a heightened sense of security about their own work. The protection of clients is paramount,” said Marisa Limón Garza, executive director of Las Americas.

Las Americas, represented by the Texas Civil Rights Project, responded by filing a federal civil rights lawsuit arguing Paxton’s demands were baseless and chilled protected advocacy. The attorney general’s office cited the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection law typically used against fraud, as the basis for its probe—an unusual route for targeting an immigration nonprofit. Las Americas attorney Aron Thorn called the investigation “retaliation” for the group’s advocacy and for its association with Annunciation House, which Paxton’s office has accused of human smuggling. The nonprofit said the request swept up confidential client data and sensitive information about sponsors that, if disclosed, could endanger families navigating lawful processes with the federal government.

The pressure campaign began in earnest at Annunciation House, a Catholic-run network of shelters that has assisted migrants in El Paso since 1978. In February 2024, Paxton arrived at the nonprofit’s office and demanded troves of records within 24 hours. Annunciation House refused, sued in state court, and found early relief when a district judge ruled that the attorney general’s seizure demands violated constitutional limits. Paxton escalated, branding the shelter a “criminal enterprise” and asserting that it was designed to “facilitate illegal border crossings and to conceal illegally present aliens from law enforcement.”

“There is no legal basis for closing a nonprofit that provides social services to refugees. Period.”

Annunciation House’s attorney countered. On July 2, 2024, Judge Francisco X. Dominguez ruled that Paxton’s actions were “outrageous and intolerable,” finding the search demands ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision on June 1, 2025 reversed that protection, allowing Paxton’s investigation to move forward even as the nonprofit vows to keep fighting.

In Houston, the attorney general tried a different tack. Paxton moved to dissolve FIEL Houston, a long-running immigrant youth and family advocacy group, alleging its political activities crossed legal lines. FIEL pushed back in court, and in August 2024, Judge Ravi K. Sandill denied Paxton’s request to halt the organization’s operations—marking the third time in two months that a Texas judge had blocked the attorney general from shutting down nonprofits based on their advocacy. The group’s executive director, Cesar Espinosa, said the lawsuit threatened years of community work:

“It comes to us as a surprise that suddenly we are being targeted by the Attorney General of Texas in an attempt to take away what has been a beacon of hope for thousands of Houstonians for the last 17 years.”

Paxton has framed his actions as a crackdown on illegal activity, claiming some shelters and aid groups facilitate smuggling or obstruct law enforcement. But courts have frequently undercut those claims. In the Rio Grande Valley, District Court Judge J.R. “Bobby” Flores ruled in favor of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley after Paxton alleged the group violated immigration laws. The court concluded the charity assists migrants who have been legally released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, undercutting the notion that its humanitarian work aided unlawful entry. In Brownsville, a bid by Paxton to secure a pre-suit deposition targeting Team Brownsville, a small nonprofit providing shelter and aid at the border, also failed after the Texas Civil Rights Project argued the attorney general had not met the legal requirements and offered no evidence to justify the demand.

The clash between state authorities and immigration nonprofits intensified after a 2022 directive from Governor Greg Abbott instructed the attorney general to investigate nongovernmental organizations allegedly involved in the illegal transportation of migrants. Paxton’s office has cited that order as a mandate for its probes and as support for a broader approach that treats certain aid work—especially anything connected to cross-border transit or migrant sponsorship—as potential violations. Legal advocates argue the approach blurs lines between state and federal jurisdictions, particularly when groups interact with federally released migrants or support federal programs. The Las Americas demand targeted a sponsorship initiative that involves volunteers and relatives supporting participants in humanitarian processes for nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Federal officials say those vetting programs require strict eligibility checks, including background screening and financial sponsors; nonprofit attorneys point to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security page on processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans as evidence the pathway is lawful and closely controlled.

Faith leaders and religious advocates have condemned Paxton’s campaign, warning that the posture criminalizes charity. Sr. Marie Lucey, OSF, called the attacks “outrageous and heartless,” reflecting alarm across Catholic and interfaith networks that have long supported migrants in Texas border cities. Susan Gunn of the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns said,

“This is an attack on religious liberty and if the attorney general succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent against anyone who puts their faith in action by welcoming the stranger as Jesus taught us.”

The attention has reached Rome, with concern from Pope Francis over the targeting of religious nonprofits, according to advocates. In El Paso, church-affiliated volunteers say fear of subpoenas and sudden inspections has already reshaped their routines, prompting tighter controls at shelters and reduced public visibility for activities that once drew volunteers by the busload.

Even with the Texas Supreme Court’s green light to continue probing Annunciation House, the attorney general’s record in court has been uneven. Judges in El Paso and Houston have repeatedly questioned the breadth of his demands and the legal theories underpinning them, especially when Paxton’s office has not shown evidence of criminal conduct. Legal scholars note that invoking the Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Las Americas represents a novel use of a consumer protection statute to police the activities of an immigration legal services nonprofit. The group’s lawyers argue the law was never designed to scrutinize communications and advocacy around federal humanitarian programs and that demanding confidential client lists crosses constitutional lines. Thorn’s description of “retaliation” underscores a core claim in the federal lawsuit: that state power is being wielded to punish speech, association, and representation in ongoing policy debates.

At ground level, the pressure has forced adjustments that ripple through the border aid network. Las Americas has increased security, limited access to parts of its offices, and reexamined how staff engage with prospective sponsors and clients, especially those communicating from Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Leaders in El Paso say some volunteers have hesitated to continue outreach along the border fence or in encampments, worried that photographs, text messages, or transportation logs might be recast as evidence of wrongdoing. Service providers say even short interruptions—like shifting staff from client work to document review—can lead to missed asylum hearings or delayed medical care for newly released families.

Annunciation House’s legal fight illustrates those stakes. After Paxton labeled the shelter a “criminal enterprise,” the nonprofit said it faced a wave of harassment online and intensified scrutiny from landlords and partners. The organization insists it only shelters people processed and released by federal authorities or referred by local law enforcement, and its lawyers stress that state officials cannot override federal immigration operations. When Judge Dominguez called Paxton’s search efforts “outrageous and intolerable” on July 2, 2024, the ruling was celebrated by advocates as a defense of privacy protections for vulnerable migrants. The Supreme Court’s decision on June 1, 2025 has tempered that relief, opening the door to more records requests, interviews, and on-site reviews by the attorney general’s team.

In Houston, FIEL’s courtroom victory at least preserved the status quo. Espinosa said the threat of dissolution—on top of highly public accusations—took a toll on staff who provide legal clinics, education workshops, and community organizing for mixed-status families. The denial of Paxton’s request to halt operations in August 2024 did not end the legal contest, but it allowed the group to keep its doors open. Similar relief has been granted elsewhere. In McAllen, Catholic Charities avoided sanctions after Judge J.R. “Bobby” Flores found that the charity’s clients are migrants legally released by DHS, which means the group’s services align with federal processes, not against them. And in Brownsville, Team Brownsville’s brush with a pre-suit deposition request ended without testimony after a court agreed that Paxton had not shown cause.

The attorney general’s office has defended its use of civil investigative tools, including the civil investigative demand sent to Las Americas on September 4, 2024, as necessary to uncover what it characterizes as potential abuses. But for nonprofits that operate on tight budgets, the cumulative effect of subpoenas, litigation, and public denunciations is heavy. Leaders tally legal bills, staff overtime to compile records, and lost time with clients. Some groups have paused particular projects in Mexico or reduced transportation services that move asylum seekers from border release points to shelters, worried that buses, ride lists, or reimbursement receipts could be misconstrued as smuggling. Others report donors asking whether contributions might draw them into legal fights.

The broader political context has sharpened the clash. Abbott’s 2022 directive to investigate NGOs—framed amid rising border crossings and state-federal friction over enforcement—encouraged a muscular approach that Paxton has embraced. The attorney general’s filings repeatedly argue that state laws can reach nonprofit conduct that, in his view, encourages illegal entry or obstructs law enforcement. Nonprofits counter that the work under attack is either humanitarian aid or assistance tied to federal processes, such as temporary parole programs for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, which require approved sponsors, background checks, and travel authorization before entry. They say state probes conflate charity with crime and risk driving vulnerable families into the hands of smugglers by scaring off reputable support.

For now, the legal picture is mixed. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling on June 1, 2025 hands Paxton leverage in the Annunciation House dispute, potentially emboldening further records demands across the network of shelters and aid centers. The rebukes from trial judges in July 2024 and August 2024 show the limits of attempts to shutter organizations without concrete evidence. In El Paso, Las Americas continues its federal case, insisting the Deceptive Trade Practices Act cannot be used to pry into protected speech and client relationships, while Annunciation House braces for renewed scrutiny even as it cites decades of cooperation with local and federal authorities.

What remains clear is that the people most affected by the back-and-forth are newly arrived migrants and the border communities that receive them. In court filings and public statements, nonprofits describe families from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela arriving with DHS paperwork in hand and relying on volunteers for a first night in a safe bed, a phone call to relatives, and a legal intake appointment. If those services slow, they say, children and parents will wait longer in bus stations, risk missing court check-ins, or struggle to find vaccinations and basic care. As one advocate put it after the latest ruling, the question is not whether these needs exist—they arrive every day at ports of entry and Border Patrol stations—but whether Texas will keep treating assistance as a threat to be punished rather than a bridge to lawfully managed entry.

For Ken Paxton, the campaign against immigration nonprofits has become a test of how far a state can go to police the work of charities at the front line of federal immigration operations. For the nonprofits, it is a fight to protect records, clients, and volunteers while they keep offering beds, meals, and legal guidance amid surges that strain every part of the system. And for judges across Texas, it is a contest of statutes and constitutional limits that, ruling by ruling, is defining the reach of state power in one of the most charged corners of public life on the border.