Case Overview 

Annunciation House, a faith-based nonprofit in El Paso, has provided shelter and aid to migrants since 1976. In February 2024, the Texas Attorney General’s office demanded immediate access to the organization’s internal records, alleging potential violations of state law related to harboring undocumented immigrants and threatening to shut it down. Annunciation House sought legal protection, arguing that the demand infringed upon its constitutional rights. 

The lower court sided with Annunciation House, declaring certain statutes unconstitutional and issuing an injunction to prevent the Attorney General from initiating further legal action. However, on May 30, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that the Attorney General possesses the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action—a legal proceeding to challenge an entity’s right to operate. The Court emphasized that this ruling allows the standard legal process to proceed without making determinations on the underlying merits of the case.  Annunciation House can continue operating for now while the case will go back to the lower court for further proceedings. 

Key Legal Takeaways for Texas Nonprofits 

It is important to note that while the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General can move forward with its lawsuit to challenge Annunciation House’s right to operate, it did not find that Annunciation House did anything wrong. It also reaffirms the rights of nonprofits to defend themselves within the judicial system and underscores the importance of preparedness and resilience. 

1. Attorney General’s Authority to Investigate and Demand Records 

The ruling affirms that the Texas Attorney General can initiate legal actions, such as quo warranto proceedings, against nonprofit organizations suspected of violating state laws. This authority includes the power to request internal records during investigations.  However, even though the Business Organizations Code states that inspection and production of records occur “immediately” upon request by the Attorney General, the Court held that precompliance (judicial) review must be read into the statute.   As a result, the Court stated that the Attorney General’s demand for production of records “immediately” means “as soon as practicable” and that precompliance review must be available to nonprofit organizations. 

       2. Constitutional Protections Remain Intact 

While the Attorney General can pursue legal actions, nonprofits retain the right to challenge such actions in court on constitutional grounds. Claims related to religious freedom and other constitutional protections can still be raised during the legal process. 

       3. Premature Constitutional Rulings Discouraged 

The Supreme Court criticized the trial court for making early constitutional determinations without a fully developed record. Nonprofits should be prepared for legal processes to unfold before constitutional claims are adjudicated. 

Specific Legal Takeaways for Texas Nonprofits that Serve Immigrants 

While the Attorney General has repeatedly accused the Annunciation House of criminal activity under state and federal harboring/smuggling statutes, not only did the Texas Supreme Court not make any finding of wrongdoing, but it emphasized that “merely providing shelter to persons who happen to be migrants, regardless of their legal status, does not violate the alien-harboring statute.”  Moreover, the Court agreed that the Texas harboring statute does not criminalize “the mere provision of food, shelter, or other means of survival” and instead criminalizes “knowing efforts to thwart the detection of those illegally present in our country.” 

1. Basic Humanitarian Aid is Not a Crime 

The Court explicitly said that merely providing shelter to migrants, regardless of their legal status, does not violate Texas’s alien-harboring statute and that nonprofits can continue to provide food, shelter and other means of survival to people regardless of immigration status.  The Court emphasized that state and federal harboring laws are not implicated by providing humanitarian aid unless it is also accompanied by an intent to conceal someone from law enforcement. 

      2. Criminal Liability Requires Intent 

Because the law criminalizes knowing efforts to thwart the detection of those who are unlawfully present and not ordinary aid, actions must be clearly distinguished between humanitarian aid and deliberate concealment.  The focus of criminal liability is on an intent to conceal rather than the act of providing care. 

What This Means for All Texas Nonprofits  

This ruling gives the Attorney General permission to file a lawsuit—not a green light to shut down nonprofits.  The decision also highlights the fact that the Attorney General cannot unilaterally bypass the courts to force records disclosures and reaffirms due process for organizations.  However, it is a stark reminder that any Texas nonprofits could face legal scrutiny, especially those serving vulnerable communities.  Now is the time for Texas nonprofits to strengthen internal systems and proactively prepare. Staying informed, strengthening internal systems, and establishing clear protocols are essential steps for nonprofits to safeguard their mission, protect their staff and clients, and preserve their ability to serve, especially in times of heightened scrutiny.  Organizational resilience is not just about compliance; it is about staying alert and ready so we can continue to do the vital work our state and our country needs. 

If you have any questions, require technical assistance, or are interested in future trainings on this topic, please contact us at info@txilc.org.