Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes
As the dust settles from the 89th Texas Legislative Session, Governor Greg Abbott (R) has taken his final action on all bills sent to his desk. After signing 1,155 into law, he vetoed 26 others, some quietly, some contentiously. With a special session set to begin on July 21, a handful of those vetoed bills are already set for reconsideration.
While each veto carries its own rationale, one stands out as a flashpoint in the ongoing tension between legislative ambition and constitutional guardrails: Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), the controversial attempt to ban most hemp-derived THC products in Texas.
Abbott Rejects a Legally Flawed THC Ban
SB 3 sought to prohibit the sale, possession, and manufacturing of hemp-derived THC products such as Delta-8 and Delta-9 while still allowing CBD and other non-psychoactive cannabinoids. It would have restricted packaging, prohibited sales to minors, and limited store locations near schools.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) made SB 3 a legislative priority, touting it as a public safety measure and securing overwhelming Republican support in both chambers. Yet Abbott vetoed the bill just before the June 22 deadline, without prior indication—a move that stunned many of Patrick’s allies.
In his official veto proclamation, Abbott laid out a pointed legal rationale:
- Federal Preemption: Abbott cited a federal court decision in Arkansas blocking a similar law as preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill. SB 3, he warned, “would never go into effect” due to likely litigation.
- Unconstitutional Takings: The bill risked retroactively criminalizing legal businesses, potentially violating state and federal protections on private property.
- Public Safety Reality: Acknowledging dangers posed by unregulated THC, Abbott concluded SB 3 would have delayed meaningful enforcement while tied up in courts.
Rather than oppose regulation, Abbott offered a comprehensive alternative, proposing a framework modeled on alcohol regulation with age restrictions, packaging rules, retailer permits, lab testing, and enforcement authority shared between TABC and law enforcement. He also indicated that a revision of SB 3 would be added to the July special session call, encouraging the Legislature to pass a law that works and lasts.
Texas Policy Research opposed SB 3 at each stage it was being considered by the legislature. We ultimately believe that:
“SB 3 unnecessarily restricts individual freedom, severely limits consumer access, punishes legitimate business activity, and expands criminal liability in ways that are inconsistent with sound regulatory practice. While protecting public health is a legitimate concern, this bill’s one-size-fits-all approach inflicts broad economic and civil liberty costs that outweigh its intended benefits. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 3 based on both the bill’s substance and its long-term implications for regulatory precedent and economic opportunity in Texas.”
Other Vetoes: From Water Fees to Human Trafficking
SB 3 may have been the most publicized veto, but it wasn’t alone. The Governor vetoed 25 other bills, some technical, some policy-heavy. He also indicated that a few of these will also be revisited in the upcoming special session. Here’s a snapshot of key measures:
- SB 648 – Real Estate Recording Requirements: This bill sought to address title theft and deed fraud by imposing additional requirements for property claims involving inherited land. Abbott vetoed it because, while well-meaning, the bill created two sets of rules, one for those who can afford an attorney or title company and another for low-income Texans or rural landowners who can’t. He argued that this unequal treatment would burden vulnerable populations with unnecessary red tape.
- SB 1253 – Water Infrastructure Impact Fees: Originally intended to encourage water conservation, the bill was amended in the House to impose new, escalating fees and authorize property entry without owner consent in a specific groundwater district. Abbott opposed these changes for violating private property rights and emphasized that water policy reform should protect Texans from government intrusion.
- SB 1278 – Human Trafficking Victim Protections: Though framed as a measure to protect trafficking victims, the bill included an affirmative defense that could apply to virtually any crime if the defendant claimed coercion from prior trafficking. Abbott noted that this could result in immunity for serious offenses, including child rape or terrorism, and stressed that existing law already allows for a duress defense. He called for a narrower, more precise draft during the special session
- SB 2878 – Judicial Administration Reforms: Marketed as a routine judiciary bill, SB 2878 was a “Trojan horse” for more significant reforms, particularly a provision allowing unlimited automatic expunctions for completing pretrial intervention programs. Abbott said these policy changes didn’t receive enough scrutiny and must be revisited in a more deliberate fashion.
In each case, the Governor left the door open for improvement. These vetoes weren’t absolute rejections but invitations to rewrite and reconsider.
The full list of all legislation vetoed by Gov. Abbott can be found here.
Political Tension: Abbott vs. Patrick
The late-night veto of SB 3 not only sparked backlash from hemp industry advocates but also ignited a very public rift between Texas’s top two Republican leaders. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the bill’s most vocal champion, held a fiery press conference Monday to express his disappointment and confusion over Governor Abbott’s decision.
Patrick began by distancing the bill from personal ownership, saying, “This is not a Dan Patrick bill… This is a bill that reasonable people in professions that know best, from medicine to law enforcement to education, said they all support.” He then pivoted sharply, openly speculating that the Governor “wants to legalize recreational marijuana” in Texas.
“Whether it’s unintentional and he didn’t think through it, or whether it’s intentional, that’s the result of the deal,” Patrick declared, directly challenging the motives behind the veto.
He also pushed back on the legal reasoning in Abbott’s official proclamation, which had warned of likely federal preemption and constitutional challenges. Patrick dismissed those concerns outright, claiming that higher courts have upheld state bans on similar hemp products and that Abbott’s arguments were not persuasive. “There’s no justification for saying we can’t ban it,” he said.
Perhaps most striking was Patrick’s assertion that Abbott had led him to believe SB 3 was not in trouble. “He said, ‘Your bill is fine,’” Patrick recalled. “Then we get this proclamation from him last night, after midnight, and he parachutes in at the last moment with arguments that we do not think are valid.”
While Patrick emphasized repeatedly that he is “not mad at the governor,” he also suggested that Abbott should come forward and clarify his position: “I would hope the governor releases a statement to say Patrick is right about SB 3 and confirm that he is for legalizing marijuana for adults in the state of Texas, because that’s news to me.”
Patrick even floated the idea that the hemp market could be entangled in criminal activity, asking rhetorically, “Are they terrorists? Is it just a terrorist money laundering scheme in Texas? Is it a cartel money laundering scheme?”
Despite the rhetorical escalation, Patrick said he is “not angry,” but “not happy that [Abbott] vetoed and how he did it.”
Gov. Abbott’s press secretary responded with the following statement in response:
“Governor Abbott has always shared the Lieutenant Governor’s desire to ensure that THC products are not sold to our children and that the dangerous synthetic drugs that we have seen recently are banned. SB 3 was well intentioned but legally flawed and this is why he is putting it on the special session agenda so that it can be fixed, improved, and signed into law. We should not risk years of potential legal battles when we can fix the bill and protect kids now. Governor Abbott looks forward to working with the legislature to pass a strong bill that is on sound legal footing.”
The SB 3 dispute now appears to represent more than just a policy disagreement; it reflects a widening gulf in priorities, political strategy, and possibly trust between the Governor and Lt. Governor. With SB 3 placed at the top of the July 21 special session agenda, this clash is far from over. Whether the Legislature follows Patrick’s lead or Abbott’s legal roadmap remains to be seen.
A Blueprint for the July 21 Special Session
Under Texas law, only the Governor can call a special session and set its agenda. Abbott has already outlined several items, including revised versions of the bills mentioned above.
Expect the Legislature to revisit SB 3 with tighter language and stronger legal footing. Any revised bill will likely reflect Abbott’s proposed alcohol-style regulatory framework, emphasizing enforceability, local control, and legal durability.
Other measures, such as judicial reforms and anti-trafficking policies, could return in more refined forms, shaped by negotiation between the Governor’s office and legislative leadership.
The Bottom Line
Governor Abbott’s 26 vetoes from the 89th Legislative Session reflect a restrained but strategic use of executive authority. In rejecting SB 3 and several other measures, Abbott emphasized constitutional concerns, federal preemption, and practical enforceability, not just political posturing.
As the Legislature returns for the July 21 special session, the challenge will be crafting revisions that address those veto concerns without sacrificing legislative intent. For conservatives, the tension between regulation and overreach remains delicate. For liberty-minded Texans, Abbott’s vetoes are a reminder that sound policy requires both principle and precision.
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!
