According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2196 is not expected to result in any significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill’s extension of the effective duration of emergency protective orders (EPOs) would not require substantial changes in existing court operations or law enforcement procedures. The state agencies responsible for implementation, such as the Office of Court Administration and the Texas Judicial Council, are anticipated to absorb any additional administrative workload within their current resources and budgets.

Similarly, no significant fiscal implications are expected at the local government level. Although extending the duration of EPOs may lead to a marginal increase in case management duties or enforcement responsibilities for local courts and law enforcement, these duties are already part of the routine operations associated with protective order enforcement. Therefore, the anticipated administrative burden or need for additional personnel or funding is considered minimal and manageable under current capacities.

In conclusion, SB 2196 is projected to have a neutral fiscal effect, both at the state and local levels, while still achieving its policy goal of enhancing protections for victims of domestic and interpersonal violence.

The intent behind SB 2196 is valid and well-supported by victim advocacy groups and law enforcement. The bill responds to the real-world challenges victims face in the aftermath of violent or traumatic incidents, especially when they are forced to relocate, secure childcare, navigate financial hardship, or seek ongoing protection. Extending the duration of MOEPs gives victims more time to stabilize their lives and access critical services. This is particularly important given that current minimum durations, such as 31 days, have proven too short for meaningful recovery and long-term safety planning.

Additionally, the bill has no significant fiscal impact at either the state or local level, according to the Legislative Budget Board. It utilizes existing judicial and law enforcement infrastructure to extend protections without the need for new funding, personnel, or agencies.

However, while the public safety benefits are clear, the bill raises serious due process and constitutional concerns. MOEPs are issued without a full hearing, often solely based on an arrest, and can impose substantial restrictions, such as preventing the accused from returning home, contacting the alleged victim, or possessing firearms. Extending the duration of these orders without offering additional procedural safeguards—such as an early hearing opportunity or periodic judicial review—heightens the risk of unjustified liberty restrictions, particularly in cases where charges are later dropped or not pursued.

This is especially critical considering that MOEPs are not contingent on a conviction or a finding of guilt. The subject of the order may be barred from their residence or children for several months while their case remains unresolved in court. While the courts can currently modify orders upon request, this process is not automatic and may not be accessible or well-understood by all defendants, particularly those without legal representation.

Given these concerns, though Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2196 ,the bill should also be amended to include:

• A guaranteed right to request a hearing within a reasonable time after an MOEP is issued.
• A requirement for judicial review before imposing the longest (121-day) order duration.
• Enhanced notice procedures to ensure individuals subject to MOEPs understand their rights and options for contesting or modifying the order.

With these changes, SB 2196 would strike a more appropriate balance between protecting victims and upholding individual liberty and due process. The core policy goal—offering extended safety windows for victims—is both justified and supported, but the mechanics of implementation must be calibrated to avoid overreach and protect constitutional rights.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly affects individual liberty by extending the period of time that emergency protective orders (MOEPs) can restrict a person’s freedoms, including movement, access to their home, communication with others, and firearm possession, without requiring a formal hearing or criminal conviction. While MOEPs serve a legitimate role in protecting victims, the bill increases the duration of government-imposed restrictions on an individual based on an accusation alone. Because these orders are issued pre-trial and without an opportunity for the accused to be heard, extending their length raises due process concerns. From a liberty standpoint, any policy that restricts an individual’s rights, especially fundamental rights such as the Second Amendment or the right to remain in one’s home, must be accompanied by appropriate procedural protections. The bill does not introduce new safeguards, which means the prolonged loss of liberty is not sufficiently checked by the legal system.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle that individuals accused of harming others must face real and immediate consequences. By allowing victims more time under protective orders, the bill encourages accountability, especially for those charged with serious crimes like family violence or sexual assault. It acknowledges that the aftermath of such crimes creates real, ongoing risks for victims and that individuals responsible for those harms should not easily re-enter a victim's life.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has no discernible effect on free enterprise. It does not regulate business activity, impose new commercial requirements, or affect employment or occupational licensing. Its scope is limited to criminal procedure and personal protective measures within the justice system.
• Private Property Rights: MOEPs often result in individuals being barred from returning to their own homes, accessing shared property, or retrieving personal belongings. Extending these orders from as few as 31 days to as many as 121 days increases the duration of separation from one's own property. While this may be justified in serious cases, the lack of procedural review before or during the extended order period means that property rights may be limited without meaningful recourse.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the power of courts to impose longer civil restrictions on individuals without increasing transparency, oversight, or procedural review. This tilts toward government overreach, particularly when individuals may be subject to orders for up to four months without a hearing or conviction. While the intent is to protect victims—a legitimate government function—this expansion should come with clearer limitations and protections to ensure government power is not misused or applied too broadly.

• HB 1194 (Same As)