Texas Court Reverses Injunction in Human Life Protection Act Case

Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes

Nearly four years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Texas continues to enforce one of the nation's strongest pro-life legal frameworks. The Texas Human Life Protection Act, enacted by the Legislature in 2021, restored criminal and civil penalties for abortion providers after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization returned authority over abortion policy to the states. Since taking effect, the law has become the cornerstone of Texas' efforts to protect unborn life.

One of the first major enforcement actions under that law began in March 2025, when Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the arrest of Houston-area midwife Maria Rojas, alleging she illegally performed abortions and practiced medicine without a physician's license. Alongside the criminal prosecution, the Office of the Attorney General filed a civil lawsuit seeking significant financial penalties and a temporary injunction that immediately halted operations at several affiliated clinics while the litigation proceeded.

On Thursday, the Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals reversed that temporary injunction, prompting headlines suggesting Texas's abortion laws had suffered a significant legal setback. A closer reading of the opinion tells a different story. The court did not invalidate the Human Life Protection Act or question Texas's authority to protect unborn life. Instead, it addressed a much narrower procedural issue: whether the Attorney General presented legally admissible evidence sufficient to justify a temporary injunction before the case proceeds to trial.

While the decision represents a procedural setback in this particular civil case, Texas's pro-life laws remain fully enforceable, and both the civil and criminal proceedings continue.

What Is the Texas Human Life Protection Act?

The Texas Human Life Protection Act was enacted as House Bill 1280 (HB 1280), authored by State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R-Southlake) during the 87th Texas Legislature (2021) and was designed to become effective if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned or substantially weakened Roe v. Wade. That occurred in June 2022 when the Supreme Court decided Dobbs, restoring to the states the authority to regulate abortion through their elected legislatures.

The law generally prohibits knowingly performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion except in narrowly defined medical emergencies. Unlike Texas's earlier Heartbeat Act, which relies primarily on private civil lawsuits, the Human Life Protection Act authorizes direct enforcement by the State through both criminal prosecution and civil penalties.

Individuals who violate the law may face felony criminal charges, civil penalties of at least $100,000 per violation, and professional licensing consequences. The statute also expressly protects pregnant women from criminal, civil, or administrative liability, placing accountability on abortion providers rather than mothers.

Who Is Maria Rojas and Why Was She Charged?

Maria Rojas is a licensed midwife who operated several clinics in the Houston area.

According to the Office of the Attorney General, investigators with the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit began investigating Rojas after receiving allegations that abortions were being performed at one of her clinics. The investigation expanded to multiple clinic locations and resulted in search warrants, criminal charges, and a broader civil enforcement action.

Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced Rojas's arrest in March 2025, alleging she violated the Human Life Protection Act and practiced medicine without a physician's license. In October 2025, the Attorney General announced the arrests of eight additional individuals allegedly connected to the operation.

Rojas has denied the allegations, and both the criminal and civil cases remain pending.

Why Were There Both Criminal and Civil Cases?

The State is pursuing two separate legal actions based on the same underlying allegations.

The criminal prosecution seeks to determine whether Rojas violated the Human Life Protection Act and the Texas Medical Practice Act (Texas Occupations Code, Title 3, Subtitle B).

Separately, the Attorney General filed a civil lawsuit seeking statutory civil penalties and injunctive relief designed to stop the alleged conduct while the litigation continues.

The July 23 appellate decision concerns only the temporary injunction issued in the civil case. It does not affect the pending criminal prosecution or end the State's civil lawsuit.

What Did the Court of Appeals Actually Decide?

The court made clear that it was not deciding whether illegal abortions actually occurred. Instead, it considered whether the Attorney General presented admissible evidence sufficient to justify a temporary injunction.

At the injunction hearing, the State relied primarily on probable cause affidavits prepared during the criminal investigation. Longstanding Texas law generally prohibits the use of affidavits to obtain a temporary injunction unless both parties agree to their admission.

Because Rojas objected to their use, the appellate court concluded the trial court improperly admitted those affidavits into evidence. Once excluded, the remaining evidence did not establish the State's probable right to relief, a required element for obtaining a temporary injunction.

The court therefore officially reversed the temporary injunction and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Why Temporary Injunctions Matter

Temporary injunctions are among the most significant remedies available in civil litigation because they allow courts to restrict a person's conduct before a final judgment has been entered. Because they are extraordinary remedies, Texas courts require parties seeking temporary injunctions to present competent, admissible evidence establishing a probable right to relief. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals concluded those evidentiary standards were not satisfied in this case.

That conclusion does not determine whether the Attorney General's allegations are true. It simply means the State must present sufficient admissible evidence before obtaining this type of extraordinary relief.

Policy Implications for Texas

The broader significance of this decision extends beyond the immediate dispute.

First, the ruling demonstrates that Texas's post-Dobbs abortion laws remain fully enforceable while reaffirming that government must satisfy longstanding procedural safeguards when seeking extraordinary judicial remedies.

Second, the opinion illustrates the important distinction between criminal investigations and civil litigation. Evidence sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest warrant does not automatically satisfy the evidentiary requirements governing a temporary injunction hearing.

Finally, the case serves as a reminder that strong laws require strong enforcement. As additional cases arise under the Human Life Protection Act, the State will need to continue building evidentiary records capable of withstanding appellate review. Doing so will strengthen future enforcement efforts and reinforce the Legislature's commitment to protecting unborn life.

What Happens Next?

The case now returns to the trial court. The Attorney General may seek review before the Texas Supreme Court while continuing to pursue the underlying civil lawsuit. On remand, the State will have another opportunity to present admissible evidence supporting its request for injunctive relief.

Meanwhile, the criminal prosecution against Maria Rojas continues independently. The ultimate question of whether Texas law was violated remains to be decided through the ordinary judicial process.

Final Thoughts

The Human Life Protection Act remains the law in Texas.

The Legislature enacted House Bill 1280 because it determined that unborn life deserves legal protection, and nothing in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals' opinion alters that policy judgment. The court addressed only the evidence supporting a temporary injunction, not the validity of Texas' abortion laws or the merits of the underlying allegations.

For supporters of the Human Life Protection Act, this decision should not be viewed as a retreat from Texas's commitment to protecting unborn life. Rather, it underscores that lasting enforcement depends upon both strong legislation and careful adherence to the procedural rules that govern every courtroom.

As this litigation moves forward, the central legal question is no longer whether Texas has the authority to protect unborn life. The Legislature answered that question when it enacted the Human Life Protection Act. The remaining question is whether the State can prove its allegations under the rules of evidence that apply to every litigant. The answer to that question will shape this case, but it will not change Texas's commitment to defending the lives of the unborn.

---