Beto O’Rourke
AUSTIN - A restraining order against a political action committee will remain into effect until an appellate court reaches a decision in the case.
Paxton
Last month, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into Beto O’Rourke’s PAC, Powered by People, for funding the Democrat legislators who walked out during the special session.
In August, Paxton secured a modified temporary restraining order halting Powered by People and any institution it partners with — including ActBlue — from removing any property or funds out of Texas.
The order led to the PAC petitioning the 15th Court of Appeals, asserting that the case concerns the “unprecedented weaponization” of the attorney general’s civil enforcement powers to “silence political opposition and retaliate against protected speech and political activities.”
“In a brazen abuse of state authority, Paxton … launched a sham enforcement proceeding against Powered by People — a Texas nonprofit organization founded by former Congressman Beto O’Rourke — solely because of the organization’s vocal opposition to congressional redistricting efforts and Mr. O’Rourke’s emergence as a potential political rival in Paxton’s upcoming 2026 U.S. Senate campaign,” the petition states.
“This is not a case about legitimate government oversight or regulatory compliance. Rather, it represents a calculated effort by an elected official to deploy the vast civil enforcement machinery of his office as a personal weapon against political opponents, transforming what should be neutral law enforcement tools into instruments of partisan retaliation.”
Court records show that on Aug. 26, a day after the petition was filed, the 15th Court stayed the proceedings and requested Paxton file a response by Aug. 27 – the following day.
Hours after the 15th court’s order, Paxton filed a petition with the Texas Supreme Court, questioning whether “the court of appeals’ demand that the State respond to a 75-page mandamus petition within 29 hours constitutes a clear abuse of discretion for which the State has no adequate remedy by appeal.”
The next day, the high court denied Paxton’s petition, dismissing the emergency motion for relief as moot.
Court records show that on Sept. 3 the 15th Court ordered the TRO to remain in effect.
“To preserve this court’s ability to fully review this original proceeding, we order that the trial court’s modified temporary restraining order issued August 15, 2025, and the emergency temporary restraining order issued August 25, 2025, shall remain in effect until a decision by this court on relators’ emergency motion or until further order of this court,” the order states.
In a press release, Paxton praised the court ruling.
“X
Appeals case No. 15-25-00140-CV
