According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) the fiscal implications of HB 4996, are minimal for both the state and local governments. The bill proposes to increase the criminal penalty for the offense of refusal to execute the release of a fraudulent lien or claim—from a Class A misdemeanor to a third-degree felony—only in cases where the affected property owner is a public servant and the offender is aware of that status.

According to the LBB, the enhancement in criminal penalty is not expected to significantly affect state correctional populations or increase demand for state correctional resources. This is likely due to the relatively limited number of cases where such an offense would involve a public servant and meet the new criteria for felony classification.

Similarly, the bill is anticipated to have no significant fiscal impact on local governments. While enforcement, prosecution, supervision, or potential incarceration responsibilities might marginally increase, the overall volume and scope of affected cases are not expected to rise enough to require substantial new expenditures at the local level.

In summary, the bill alters criminal classification in a narrow subset of cases and is fiscally neutral for both the state and local jurisdictions, according to current estimates.

HB 4996 amends the Texas Penal Code to increase the criminal penalty for refusing to execute the release of a fraudulent lien or claim when the person targeted by the fraudulent lien is a public servant. Currently, this offense is a Class A misdemeanor; the bill would elevate it to a third-degree felony if the perpetrator knows the lien was filed against a public servant. The bill applies prospectively and takes effect September 1, 2025.

While the bill is aimed at protecting public servants—such as judges, prosecutors, and other officials—from harassment and retaliation through fraudulent liens, it creates a problematic distinction by imposing a harsher penalty based solely on the victim's status. This introduces a special class of legal protection for public servants that is not extended to ordinary citizens, even though fraudulent liens can be equally damaging regardless of the target’s occupation.

From a Limited Government perspective, this bill undermines the principle of equal treatment under the law by assigning disparate criminal penalties based on who the victim is, rather than the nature of the offense. It expands the scope of criminal penalties in a targeted way that favors government actors, potentially at the expense of broader constitutional neutrality.

In terms of Individual Liberty and Equal Protection, the legislation conflicts with the idea that all persons should be treated equally under the law. While it is reasonable to deter harassment against public servants, that goal can be achieved by robust enforcement of existing laws without elevating penalties based on occupation. Doing so sets a precedent that some individuals deserve more legal protection than others.

The bill also raises personal responsibility concerns by suggesting that offenses against certain individuals merit greater punishment, potentially diluting the deterrent effect for similarly harmful acts committed against ordinary Texans.

Because it introduces unequal treatment in the justice system without sufficient justification and risks establishing a precedent for expanding special legal protections based on professional status, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4996.

• Individual Liberty: This bill impacts individual liberty by introducing unequal treatment under the law based on the status of the victim. By enhancing the penalty for the same offense (refusing to release a fraudulent lien) only when the property owner is a known public servant, the law creates a differentiated tier of justice. While the protection of public servants from harassment is important, increasing penalties solely because the victim holds a government position runs counter to the principle that all individuals should be treated equally before the law. This diminishes the ideal of neutral legal protections for all citizens, regardless of status.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill partially supports the principle of personal responsibility by holding individuals more accountable for knowingly targeting public servants with fraudulent liens. However, by singling out only one class of victims for enhanced penalties, it does not uniformly encourage responsible behavior toward all property owners. The selective application may, in fact, shift the perception of accountability from the act itself to the identity of the victim, which is a problematic standard in criminal justice.
• Free Enterprise: There is little to no direct impact on free enterprise, as the bill does not regulate business activity or market behavior. However, to the extent that overcriminalization or unequal legal standards create uncertainty in legal and financial dealings—especially involving property rights—there may be secondary, chilling effects in areas such as real estate or lending.
• Private Property Rights: The bill seems to uphold private property rights by attempting to deter and punish those who refuse to release fraudulent liens, a practice that can unlawfully cloud title or obstruct an owner’s use of their property. However, by offering stronger protections only to public servants, the bill implicitly suggests that the property rights of ordinary citizens are less deserving of vigorous legal defense, which undermines the universality of this core right.
• Limited Government: This bill conflicts with the principle of limited government by expanding the criminal code to create a special protected class within the law. Rather than applying existing penalties evenly, it grants greater state enforcement power in cases involving public servants, which can set a precedent for other expansions of state authority based on occupational or social status. Such tiered justice systems run counter to the restrained, neutral role government should play in upholding the rule of law.