Estimated Time to Read: 5 minutes
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a civil lawsuit seeking to halt the operations of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood in Texas. The filing follows earlier designation and enforcement actions taken by Governor Greg Abbott (R), and represents a shift from administrative oversight to direct judicial enforcement.
Rather than relying solely on executive authority or nonprofit compliance mechanisms, the Attorney General is now asking a Texas court to impose binding restrictions on the organizations’ ability to operate within the state. This move places the dispute squarely before the judiciary and raises significant legal and policy considerations.
What the Lawsuit Against CAIR Seeks to Accomplish
The lawsuit, filed in Collin County district court, names the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR Foundation, CAIR-Texas, and regional CAIR affiliates as defendants. The State of Texas is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions that would prohibit these entities from continuing operations in Texas.
The Attorney General is not seeking monetary damages. Instead, the requested relief would bar the defendants from engaging in organizational activity such as fundraising, recruitment, and advocacy within the state. According to the petition, these activities constitute an ongoing violation of Texas law following the governor’s designation and pose an irreparable threat that cannot be remedied through fines or future compliance efforts alone.
Paxton’s Statement on the Lawsuit Against CAIR
In announcing the lawsuit, Attorney General Paxton framed the filing as a necessary step to enforce Texas law and protect public safety following the governor’s designation. Paxton emphasized that the action targets organizational conduct rather than individual religious belief.
“Sharia law and the jihadists who follow Sharia law have no business being in Texas. I am in full support of Governor Abbott’s lawful declaration that CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are foreign terrorist organizations, and it’s imperative that they are stopped from operating in Texas. Radical Islamic terrorists are antithetical to law and order, endanger the people of Texas, and are an existential threat to our values.”
Source: Press Release, Attorney General of Texas, 2.5.2026
Legal Authority Underlying the Texas Lawsuit Against CAIR
The lawsuit relies on several provisions of Texas law that collectively authorize enforcement against designated organizations. Central to the state’s argument is Texas Penal Code Section 71.01, which defines foreign terrorist organizations and permits enforcement against groups that threaten the security of the state or its residents.
The petition also cites the Texas Property Code, which prohibits designated transnational criminal organizations from purchasing or holding real property in Texas. Governor Abbott’s November 2025 proclamation is presented as the triggering event that empowers the Attorney General to pursue judicial enforcement.
In addition, the state argues that the defendants’ continued operations constitute a public nuisance under Texas civil law.
Factual Allegations Supporting the Texas CAIR Lawsuit
The state’s petition presents a detailed factual narrative tying CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood over several decades. It references a 1993 meeting of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operatives in Philadelphia, where participants allegedly discussed operating through front organizations in the United States.
The lawsuit places significant weight on findings from the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case, in which CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator and multiple individuals connected to CAIR leadership were convicted of providing material support to Hamas. The conviction of Ghassan Elashi, a founder of CAIR-Texas, is cited as evidence that the organization’s Texas presence originated with individuals later found guilty of terrorism-related crimes.
Beyond historical allegations, the petition also points to more recent conduct. These include public support for disruptive campus protests and coordination with organizations accused of terrorist ties. The state argues that this conduct demonstrates continuity of ideology rather than a repudiation of past associations.
How the Lawsuit Escalates Beyond Prior Enforcement Actions
Earlier actions by the governor and Attorney General relied primarily on executive designation and administrative oversight. Those measures established the legal foundation for enforcement but did not directly prohibit organizational activity.
This lawsuit represents a clear escalation. By seeking court-ordered injunctions, the state is attempting to convert executive determinations into enforceable judicial mandates. If granted, the requested relief would significantly expand the consequences of designation by effectively shutting down the defendants’ operations in Texas.
The lawsuit also shifts the burden onto the defendants to challenge the state’s claims in court, rather than contesting administrative findings alone. That process will create a formal evidentiary record that may shape future enforcement actions under similar statutes.
Constitutional and Legal Questions Raised by the Texas CAIR Lawsuit
Because the lawsuit seeks injunctive relief rather than administrative penalties, it raises more direct constitutional questions. Defendants are expected to argue that the state is engaging in viewpoint discrimination, violating First Amendment protections, or relying on guilt by association rather than current criminal conduct.
There are also federalism considerations. Terrorism designations are typically a matter of federal law, and courts may be asked to assess whether Texas’s statutory framework improperly intrudes into federally governed territory.
A central issue will be how much weight courts assign to the governor’s proclamation. Judges must determine whether the designation functions as a presumptive factual finding or merely as a trigger for judicial review requiring independent evaluation.
Broader Implications of the Lawsuit
Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit signals a more aggressive enforcement posture by the state of Texas. It indicates that designation is not intended to be symbolic, but rather a precursor to judicial action aimed at fully restricting organizational activity.
If successful, the case could establish a template for future state-level enforcement actions against organizations designated as terrorist or transnational criminal entities. If unsuccessful, it could impose meaningful limits on the use of civil nuisance and injunction theories in national security-related cases.
Either way, the lawsuit represents a significant test of existing Texas law and may prompt legislative refinement depending on how courts interpret the scope of enforcement authority.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
