According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 796 will have no significant fiscal implications to the State of Texas. The fiscal analysis assumes that any administrative costs associated with implementing the legislation, including staffing the proposed Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Enforcement and executing its responsibilities, can be absorbed within existing agency resources.

The bill also has no projected significant fiscal impact on local governments. Its implementation does not require new expenditures or significant structural changes at the municipal or county level, as it centers primarily on state-level legislative review and oversight of federal actions.

Overall, HB 796 appears to have minimal financial impact from a budgeting perspective, relying instead on the reallocation of existing resources within agencies such as the Office of the Governor, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State, which are among the key stakeholders referenced in the fiscal note.

HB 796 represents a principled and assertive effort by the Texas Legislature to reassert state sovereignty and uphold the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. By creating a Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Enforcement, the bill establishes a formal process for reviewing federal actions, such as laws, executive orders, and court decisions, to determine whether they overstep constitutional bounds. When such actions are deemed unconstitutional by both chambers of the legislature, Texas may officially declare them void within its jurisdiction, barring state and local enforcement or expenditure of resources.

The bill aligns strongly with the principles of limited government and individual liberty. It reinforces the Tenth Amendment and affirms the state’s role in checking federal overreach. It also presents an opportunity to protect Texans from mandates that may conflict with their rights or impose burdens not supported by constitutional authority. This makes the legislation especially attractive to those who value state-level checks on centralized power and who view the Constitution as a binding contract that must be interpreted as originally intended.

While some may raise concerns about potential legal conflicts with federal supremacy, HB 796 operates within a constitutional dialogue that prioritizes balance, not secession or defiance. It maintains procedural order and respects the legislature’s authority, making it a measured and structured response to perceived federal excesses. Additionally, the bill has no significant fiscal impact, and administrative implementation can be achieved with existing resources.

In light of its constitutional grounding, its support for state autonomy, and its alignment with the principles of free enterprise and personal liberty, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 796. The bill affirms Texas’s right to self-governance within a federal framework and signals a strong defense of the liberties and responsibilities reserved to the states and their citizens.

• Individual Liberty: The bill’s central aim is to protect Texans from federal actions that exceed constitutionally delegated powers, thereby defending individual liberty against centralized overreach. By empowering the state to evaluate and potentially nullify such actions, it creates a mechanism for protecting freedoms that may not be otherwise safeguarded. However, without explicit safeguards, there is a theoretical risk that this mechanism could be used to reject federal protections of civil liberties (e.g., anti-discrimination laws, voting rights), depending on how “unconstitutional” is interpreted by the committee. As written, the bill supports liberty, but implementation must be closely watched to ensure individual rights are not inadvertently curtailed.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill doesn’t directly legislate personal behavior, it does promote a culture of constitutional accountability. It calls on elected officials to uphold their oaths to the U.S. Constitution, reinforcing the idea that government actors must act with responsibility and fidelity to foundational legal principles. It also subtly supports the notion that Texans, through their state institutions, have a role in shaping the limits of federal power and are not merely passive recipients of national directives.
• Free Enterprise: The bill could positively impact the principle of free enterprise by enabling Texas to resist federal regulations that burden businesses beyond what the Constitution permits. For example, if certain agency rules affecting energy, labor, or commerce are deemed unconstitutional, the state could act to shield its economy from those mandates. This supports a more predictable and locally governed regulatory environment, benefiting small businesses and entrepreneurs in particular.
• Private Property Rights: By reinforcing state authority over intrastate matters, including land use, environmental controls, and eminent domain-related issues, the bill may provide stronger protections for private property rights. If used to resist federal actions that interfere with landowner autonomy without constitutional justification, the bill enhances the state’s ability to act as a buffer against external encroachments on property.
• Limited Government: This principle is at the heart of the bill. The bill operationalizes the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of undelegated powers to the states and the people. It sets up a formal and democratic mechanism for Texas to push back against federal overreach—legislatively, not just rhetorically. It enhances the Legislature’s role as a constitutional check and affirms that Texas need not automatically implement every federal action, especially those lacking clear constitutional authority.

• HB 898 (Same As)
• SB 707 (Similar To)
• SB 80 (Similar To)