According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3750 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill permits the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to reimburse certain employees for legal fees incurred under two scenarios: up to $10,000 for legal defense in criminal proceedings that result in exoneration, and up to $5,000 for legal costs in obtaining protective or restraining orders. Despite these potential expenditures, the Legislative Budget Board anticipates that any resulting costs can be absorbed within the agency’s existing budget and resources​.

The analysis assumes that the volume of eligible claims and the reimbursement caps established in the bill are sufficiently narrow to avoid requiring additional appropriations. As such, the flexibility built into the bill helps prevent unexpected budgetary pressure while still providing meaningful protection to DFPS personnel acting within the scope of their duties.

There are no expected fiscal implications for local governments, as the bill applies exclusively to the state-level Department of Family and Protective Services and its employees. Thus, the legislation is considered fiscally neutral with respect to both state and local governmental operations​.

HB 3750 is a narrowly tailored, fiscally responsible proposal designed to support frontline employees of the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS)—particularly those engaged in protecting children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities. The bill allows DFPS to reimburse legal expenses for employees who either (1) face criminal prosecution stemming from their official duties and are later acquitted or have charges dismissed, or (2) seek a protective or restraining order in response to threats encountered while performing their job. This legal support is capped—$10,000 for criminal defense and $5,000 for protective orders—and applies only under strict conditions where the employee is either vindicated or proactively seeking protection.

The bill enhances the principle of individual liberty by ensuring public servants are not financially devastated when acting in good faith within the scope of their job responsibilities. It balances this with personal responsibility by not offering blanket immunity—only reimbursing legal fees when a court determines the employee was not at fault or when they act preemptively to secure their safety through proper legal channels. There is no shielding of misconduct or wrongdoing.

Critically, HB 3750 does not grow the size or scope of government in any significant way. It does not create a new agency, mandate a new program, or expand DFPS's core mission. The rulemaking authority granted to DFPS is limited to internal implementation guidelines, not new regulatory powers. Additionally, the bill imposes no regulatory burdens on private individuals or businesses. Its effects are entirely internal to the agency, making this a clean, low-footprint legislative change.

From a fiscal perspective, the Legislative Budget Board confirms that the bill is not expected to have a significant impact on the state budget. The capped reimbursements are to be absorbed within DFPS’s existing resources, meaning no new taxes or appropriations are required. No burden is passed to taxpayers, and there is no fiscal impact on local governments.

A potential concern could be that legal costs should fall on the party who causes the problem. However, this bill covers scenarios where that’s not practical or legally enforceable. In criminal cases, there often is no “losing party” who can be made to pay, and in protective order situations, the threatening party is often indigent, hostile, or untraceable. The bill steps in only when the employee cannot otherwise recover their legal expenses, and only if they were either exonerated or reasonably acted to protect themselves.

Some lawmakers might worry about the potential for future expansion of similar benefits across agencies, or a lack of detailed reimbursement procedures. However, these concerns are mitigated by the bill’s narrow scope, strict eligibility requirements, and low fiscal footprint. The bill is not an open-ended entitlement; it is a targeted safeguard to retain and support workers in high-risk public safety roles.

Ultimately, HB 3750 aligns with the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and justice, while protecting individuals who take on some of the most difficult and high-risk roles in state service. It provides support without overreach, financial risk, or regulatory expansion, and only under circumstances where the employee has been cleared of wrongdoing or is acting to prevent personal harm. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3750.

• HB 3750 upholds and strengthens individual liberty by ensuring that DFPS employees are not financially punished for performing their duties when they are falsely accused or threatened. These public servants operate in emotionally charged, high-risk environments, and the bill provides legal and financial safeguards when they are exonerated or seek to protect themselves through legal means. This reduces the chilling effect of potential legal and personal threats, supporting the liberty of employees to carry out their public service roles confidently and safely.
• The bill maintains personal responsibility by limiting reimbursement only to those DFPS employees who are either: Found not guilty or have charges dismissed (i.e., vindicated through due process), or proactively seek legal protection in the form of a protective or restraining order, likely due to threats received while doing their job. It does not indemnify misconduct or shield bad actors, nor does it encourage careless behavior. Rather, it responsibly acknowledges that employees acting in good faith should not be left alone to bear life-altering legal costs.
• HB 3750 does not affect the private sector, impose new regulations, or interfere with economic freedoms. It is a government-employee-focused measure that neither limits nor enhances private market participation. However, by supporting the stability and retention of frontline DFPS employees, it may have an indirect stabilizing effect on the public-private ecosystem of social services (many of which are delivered in partnership with contracted providers).
• The bill does not impact property rights. It neither seizes nor regulates the use of private property, and it does not change any legal standards relating to eminent domain, ownership, or land use. Therefore, it is neutral on this liberty principle.
• While HB 3750 slightly expands DFPS’s authority by allowing reimbursement for certain legal costs, it does so in a narrowly defined, optional, and fiscally limited manner. The maximum reimbursements are capped, the provisions apply only to specific personnel acting in specific roles, and the Legislative Budget Board projects no significant fiscal impact, with costs absorbed within existing resources. Moreover, the reimbursement only applies when the employee is exonerated or seeking legal safety—not as a blanket benefit. This avoids the creation of a new entitlement or permanent program, keeping the scope of government contained. It is a targeted support mechanism, not a structural expansion.

• SB 1526 (Similar To)