On July 18, an appeals court in Texas upheld a provision that prohibits local governments from passing ordinances that violate state law. City officials are currently reevaluating their policy structure.
Unless the state permits such restrictions, Texas House Bill 2127, popularly known as the Death Star law, permits corporations and individuals to sue cities over regulations in sectors like commerce, insurance, labor, property, natural resources, and agriculture. The law’s supporters in the Texas Legislature contended that it is required to avoid disparate laws throughout the state.
In Travis County court, a group of cities, including Houston and San Antonio, contested the law. In their complaint, city representatives contended that the rule was an overreach that hindered local governments from attending to the interests of their communities. The Texas Court of Appeals Third District overturned the court’s 2023 declaration that the legislation was unconstitutional because the cities were unable to demonstrate that the statute had a negative impact on them until it was put into effect.
According to Randall Erben, an adjunct professor at the UT School of Law, the decision compels localities to reevaluate their rules.
According to Erben, the cities are at a disadvantage. To make sure they don’t have any prohibitions that are more general or that go against state law in those eight major issue areas, they will examine all of their ordinance codes and city charter provisions.
Regulations that were in place before to the law’s implementation in September 2023 would be impacted. The Austin Code of Ordinances contains regulations pertaining to affected areas, including land development, business operations, and animal management. These rules are presently being examined by city employees in order to determine how the law might affect Austin.
The rule will affect nearly every significant issue the city deals with, according to an email from Council Member Zohaib Zo Qadri, who represents UT and West Campus.
According to Qadri, there is now a preemption filter for housing, homelessness, mobility, and public safety. We’re not slowing down, but we need to consider how to formulate and organize policy to ensure its viability.
With a projected $33.4 million shortfall, the decision was made during Austin’s budget season.The Five-Year Financial Forecast Report states that in order to prevent deficit spending that would impede funding for major projects, the budget office requested in April that the city council search department budgets for savings. Austin’s revenue collection was further limited in June when the state curtailed property taxes. Public utilities like energy and water, which are another source of income, may encounter difficulties if they clash with state public utility legislation, according to Erben.
Qadri stated that he does not anticipate the bill affecting Austin’s utility operations in spite of these worries.
According to Qadri, “our utility operations are largely protected because they fall squarely within the authority granted to municipalities by the state.” That doesn’t mean we’re not keeping an eye out, but for the time being, I have faith that Austin Energy and our utility agencies can carry on with the work that our citizens depend on.
According to Erben, cities will have little legal justification to oppose the bill in the future.
According to Erben, we must keep in mind that counties and cities are products of the state. It would be difficult to substantiate their claim that this is unconstitutional since the state would then claim that you don’t exist except for us.
