The fiscal implications of H.B. 3475 are structured around a delayed cost curve, with no General Revenue impact during the current biennium (FY 2026–2027), but with significant expenditures beginning in FY 2028 as planning and implementation ramp up. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill itself does not appropriate funds but could serve as the legal foundation for future appropriations related to the establishment and operation of the proposed law school.

Initial costs in FY 2028 are estimated at approximately $2.56 million in General Revenue to cover salaries, benefits, and startup operations for 14 full-time staff, including faculty and administrative positions. This figure increases to $3.76 million in FY 2029 and grows further to $7.39 million in FY 2030 as staffing expands to 24 full-time employees and operations scale up in preparation for the first class of law students. The school is projected to begin enrolling students in FY 2030.

In addition to operating costs, the bill authorizes the issuance of up to $40 million in capital construction assistance bonds to support a portion of the estimated $150 million needed for a new law school building. The remaining $110 million is expected to come from institutional funds. Annual debt service on the bonds is projected to total $13.08 million, with $3.49 million covered by General Revenue and $9.59 million by institutional sources. These costs would be incurred over a 20-year amortization period at an assumed interest rate of 6%.

Revenue from tuition and fees will be modest at first, with estimated FY 2030 tuition revenue from the initial cohort of 25 students totaling $138,000 (split between board-authorized and statutory tuition). Additional tuition revenue and formula funding would only begin to meaningfully offset costs after FY 2032. No significant fiscal impacts on local governments are anticipated.

In summary, while the bill incurs no immediate fiscal burden, it commits the state to long-term capital and operational expenditures beginning in FY 2028. These costs are only partially offset by tuition revenue and may require significant ongoing appropriations, particularly in the absence of strong enrollment growth or supplemental funding sources.

HB 3475 proposes the establishment of a new public law school in El Paso County, allowing any Texas university system to construct and operate the institution. The bill is motivated by the goal of expanding legal education access in West Texas, where El Paso is currently underserved by in-state law schools. While the goal of regional access to higher education is not inherently objectionable, the mechanism, cost, and precedent set by this bill raise significant concerns.

From a limited government perspective, HB 3475 represents an unnecessary expansion of state functions into a sector that is already well-served by existing public and private law schools in Texas. The creation of an entirely new campus, complete with staffing, infrastructure, and long-term operational needs, commits the state to expanded bureaucracy and ongoing appropriations with no defined sunset or performance review mechanism. The bill permits a university system to act unilaterally upon completion of a feasibility study conducted by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), without requiring subsequent legislative reauthorization or public input once costs and risks become clear.

The fiscal implications further reinforce opposition. The Legislative Budget Board projects a General Revenue impact beginning in FY 2028 and growing to over $7 million annually by FY 2030. In addition, $40 million in new bonds would be authorized, contributing to state debt and incurring $13 million per year in debt service, $3.5 million of which would be borne by the state, with the remainder falling on institutional funds often drawn from student tuition. These costs are not offset by projected revenue, particularly in the early years when enrollment would be limited and formula funding would not yet apply. This creates a structural deficit that may grow if enrollment targets are not met.

Conservatives should also be concerned about market redundancy. The job market for new law graduates remains highly competitive, and there is little evidence that the state suffers from an undersupply of licensed attorneys. Without clear, independent data demonstrating unmet statewide or regional demand, this bill risks saturating the legal education market, devaluing law degrees, and misallocating taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the bill lacks safeguards against mission creep, such as statutory limits on the scope, scale, or future expansion of the law school.

The bill's structure also exposes the state to further obligations through its provision for access to either the Permanent University Fund (PUF) or the Higher Education Fund (HEF), depending on which system establishes the school. While not an appropriation in itself, this entitlement to constitutionally protected funds effectively prioritizes a new, unproven institution over existing campuses and programs already facing funding challenges.

In sum, HB 3475 fails to meet the tests of fiscal prudence, government restraint, and market necessity. While the desire to expand legal education opportunities in West Texas is understandable, the bill does so by expanding public debt, growing state bureaucracy, and duplicating existing education infrastructure. It does so without adequate accountability, demand analysis, or legislative safeguards. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3475.

• Individual Liberty: The bill could be viewed as modestly supportive of individual liberty by expanding geographic access to legal education in an underserved region of Texas. For aspiring attorneys in El Paso County and surrounding areas, the establishment of a public law school may remove barriers to higher education, allowing more individuals to pursue professional advancement without relocating. However, this gain in individual access comes through the expansion of state authority and public funding obligations, rather than through private-sector or community-based solutions. In that sense, it promotes dependency on government systems rather than encouraging decentralized or market-driven options. It also does not include provisions to protect intellectual diversity or viewpoint neutrality, which could undermine liberty in practice if politicized.
• Personal Responsibility: By creating a new publicly funded law school with projected costs in the tens of millions, the bill socializes the financial burden of legal education across taxpayers, many of whom will never benefit directly. This undermines the principle that individuals should bear the consequences (and rewards) of their own decisions. Legal education is a personal, professional choice, and subsidizing it through public debt weakens the incentive for individuals and institutions to manage costs and align with market demand. Additionally, the bill does not require students or the institution to meet performance thresholds tied to funding. Nor does it require any demonstrated local attorney shortage or job market gap before proceeding. This opens the door to irresponsibly funded expansion without corresponding accountability.
• Free Enterprise: The bill introduces a state-subsidized competitor into an already saturated legal education marketplace. Texas already has multiple public law schools (e.g., UT Austin, Texas A&M, Texas Southern, Texas Tech) and several private institutions. Adding another government-funded school risks crowding out private innovation, discouraging competition, and distorting market incentives. Rather than encouraging private solutions, such as scholarships, distance learning, or partnerships with private law schools, the bill uses public money to increase supply without sufficient evidence of unmet demand. This is a clear violation of the free enterprise principle, which favors market-driven growth and private capital over government expansion.
• Private Property Rights: The bill includes authority for the university system to “acquire, purchase, construct, improve, renovate, enlarge, or equip” facilities for the law school and issues $40 million in bonds for such purposes. However, it does not explicitly reference or restrict the use of eminent domain. In theory, this leaves the door open to coercive land acquisition unless amended. While there’s no direct language threatening property rights, a pro-liberty analysis would recommend including a clear prohibition on the use of eminent domain to ensure the principle of voluntary exchange is preserved.
• Limited Government: This bill expands the scope of state government by authorizing the creation of a new professional school, allocating debt authority, increasing future appropriations, and making the new entity eligible for constitutionally protected funding from either the Permanent University Fund or the Higher Education Fund. It also lacks legislative safeguards that would limit future appropriations, review outcomes, or allow for program termination if enrollment or impact projections are not met. From a limited government perspective, this unchecked expansion of the state’s higher education infrastructure, without clear demand or self-funding mechanisms, is a fundamental violation of the principle.

• SB 3006 (Same As)