Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.
Headline: Texas AG's attempt to shut down migrant aid group blocked by Fifth Circuit
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Federal law preempts Texas statute criminalizing aid to migrants, allowing humanitarian organizations to continue operations.
- Federal law often preempts state laws that attempt to regulate immigration or related activities.
- Courts will scrutinize state laws that could interfere with federal objectives, especially in areas of national concern like immigration.
- Organizations providing humanitarian aid to vulnerable populations should be aware of their rights and the legal landscape governing their activities.
Case Summary
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc., decided by Texas Supreme Court on May 30, 2025, resulted in a plaintiff win outcome. The State of Texas, through Attorney General Ken Paxton, sought to shut down Annunciation House, a non-profit organization providing humanitarian aid to migrants, alleging it violated state law by encouraging illegal immigration. The district court granted a temporary injunction against the state, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The appellate court found that the state's law was preempted by federal immigration law and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction. The court held: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction, finding that the State of Texas failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that Annunciation House violated state law.. The court held that Texas's law prohibiting the "harboring" of undocumented immigrants was preempted by federal immigration law, as Congress has occupied the field of immigration regulation.. The appellate court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Annunciation House was likely to succeed on its preemption defense.. The Fifth Circuit found that the state's law was not a valid exercise of its police powers because it conflicted with federal immigration policy.. The court concluded that the district court's injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Annunciation House's operations and its ability to provide humanitarian aid.. This decision reinforces the principle of federal supremacy in immigration matters, limiting states' ability to enact their own immigration enforcement laws. It signals that state attempts to regulate activities related to immigration, even under the guise of public safety or anti-trafficking measures, are likely to face preemption challenges if they conflict with federal law.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A Texas law aimed at stopping organizations from helping migrants was put on hold by a federal court. The court decided that federal immigration laws are more powerful than the state law in this case. This means organizations like Annunciation House can continue to provide humanitarian aid to migrants while the legal battle continues.
For Legal Practitioners
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction, holding that Texas's anti-harboring statute was preempted by federal immigration law. The court found that the state law interfered with Congress's comprehensive scheme for immigration regulation and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining its enforcement.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the doctrine of federal preemption in immigration law. The Fifth Circuit determined that a state law criminalizing the provision of aid to migrants was preempted by the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme, affirming the grant of a temporary injunction against the state.
Newsroom Summary
A federal appeals court has blocked Texas from enforcing a law that would have penalized organizations helping migrants. The court ruled that federal immigration laws take precedence, allowing humanitarian groups to continue their work while the case proceeds.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction, finding that the State of Texas failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that Annunciation House violated state law.
- The court held that Texas's law prohibiting the "harboring" of undocumented immigrants was preempted by federal immigration law, as Congress has occupied the field of immigration regulation.
- The appellate court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Annunciation House was likely to succeed on its preemption defense.
- The Fifth Circuit found that the state's law was not a valid exercise of its police powers because it conflicted with federal immigration policy.
- The court concluded that the district court's injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Annunciation House's operations and its ability to provide humanitarian aid.
Key Takeaways
- Federal law often preempts state laws that attempt to regulate immigration or related activities.
- Courts will scrutinize state laws that could interfere with federal objectives, especially in areas of national concern like immigration.
- Organizations providing humanitarian aid to vulnerable populations should be aware of their rights and the legal landscape governing their activities.
- The standard of review for temporary injunctions focuses on whether the district court abused its discretion.
- Non-profits providing essential services can seek injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of potentially unlawful state statutes.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
abuse of discretion - The Fifth Circuit reviews a district court's grant of a temporary injunction for abuse of discretion.
Procedural Posture
The State of Texas appealed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction that prevented the State from enforcing a law against Annunciation House, a non-profit organization providing humanitarian aid to migrants.
Burden of Proof
The State of Texas had the burden of proving that Annunciation House violated Texas law and that a temporary injunction was warranted. The district court found the State did not meet this burden.
Legal Tests Applied
Preemption Doctrine
Elements: Federal law must occupy the field or conflict with state law. · State law is preempted if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
The Fifth Circuit held that Texas law, which criminalized 'harboring' or 'assisting' migrants, was preempted by federal immigration law. The court reasoned that the federal government has a comprehensive scheme for regulating immigration, and Texas law stood as an obstacle to these federal objectives, particularly regarding humanitarian aid.
Abuse of Discretion (Temporary Injunction)
Elements: Likelihood of success on the merits · Irreparable harm · Balance of equities · Public interest
The Fifth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction because Annunciation House was likely to succeed on its preemption argument. The court also noted that the balance of equities and public interest favored allowing humanitarian aid to continue.
Statutory References
| 42 U.S.C. § 13701 et seq. | Federal Immigration and Nationality Act — The court found that the comprehensive nature of federal immigration law, including provisions for asylum and humanitarian treatment, preempted Texas's attempt to criminalize the provision of aid to migrants. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
Texas law is preempted by federal immigration law.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction.
Remedies
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction, preventing the State of Texas from enforcing its law against Annunciation House.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Federal law often preempts state laws that attempt to regulate immigration or related activities.
- Courts will scrutinize state laws that could interfere with federal objectives, especially in areas of national concern like immigration.
- Organizations providing humanitarian aid to vulnerable populations should be aware of their rights and the legal landscape governing their activities.
- The standard of review for temporary injunctions focuses on whether the district court abused its discretion.
- Non-profits providing essential services can seek injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of potentially unlawful state statutes.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are a volunteer at a non-profit organization that provides food and shelter to asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the U.S.
Your Rights: You have the right to continue providing humanitarian aid to migrants, as state laws attempting to criminalize such actions are likely preempted by federal law.
What To Do: Continue your work providing humanitarian assistance. If your organization receives any legal challenges or threats of enforcement under state law, consult with legal counsel specializing in immigration and constitutional law.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to provide humanitarian aid to migrants in Texas?
Yes, it is generally legal to provide humanitarian aid to migrants. The Fifth Circuit has ruled that Texas laws attempting to criminalize such aid are preempted by federal immigration law.
This ruling specifically applies to the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) and addresses the preemption of state laws by federal immigration statutes.
Practical Implications
For Humanitarian Aid Organizations
Organizations providing aid to migrants can continue their operations without fear of immediate state-level prosecution under laws like the one challenged in this case, pending further legal developments.
For Migrants Seeking Aid
Migrants will continue to have access to essential humanitarian services provided by organizations like Annunciation House, without the immediate threat of those services being shut down by state action.
Related Legal Concepts
The principle that federal law is supreme over state law when there is a conflic... Immigration Law
The body of law governing the admission, exclusion, and deportation of foreign n... Temporary Injunction
A court order issued early in a lawsuit to stop a party from taking a certain ac...
Frequently Asked Questions (38)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (9)
Q: What is Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. about?
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. is a case decided by Texas Supreme Court on May 30, 2025.
Q: What court decided Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.?
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. was decided by the Texas Supreme Court, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. decided?
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. was decided on May 30, 2025.
Q: Who were the judges in Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.?
The judge in Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.: Young.
Q: What is the citation for Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.?
The citation for Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What was the main issue in Paxton v. Annunciation House?
The main issue was whether Texas could enforce a state law that criminalized assisting or harboring migrants, or if that law was preempted by federal immigration law. The court focused on whether the state law interfered with federal immigration objectives.
Q: What did the Fifth Circuit decide?
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant a temporary injunction, blocking Texas from enforcing the law against Annunciation House. They ruled the state law was preempted by federal law.
Q: What is Annunciation House?
Annunciation House is a non-profit organization based in El Paso, Texas, that provides humanitarian aid, such as shelter, food, and legal orientation, to migrants and asylum seekers.
Q: What is a temporary injunction?
A temporary injunction is a court order that temporarily stops a party from taking a specific action while a lawsuit is ongoing. It's meant to preserve the status quo until a final decision can be made.
Legal Analysis (13)
Q: Is Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. published?
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. cover?
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. covers the following legal topics: First Amendment freedom of speech, First Amendment freedom of association, Texas anti-trafficking laws, Immigration law, Temporary injunctions, Due process.
Q: What was the ruling in Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.?
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.. Key holdings: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction, finding that the State of Texas failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that Annunciation House violated state law.; The court held that Texas's law prohibiting the "harboring" of undocumented immigrants was preempted by federal immigration law, as Congress has occupied the field of immigration regulation.; The appellate court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Annunciation House was likely to succeed on its preemption defense.; The Fifth Circuit found that the state's law was not a valid exercise of its police powers because it conflicted with federal immigration policy.; The court concluded that the district court's injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Annunciation House's operations and its ability to provide humanitarian aid..
Q: Why is Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. important?
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. has an impact score of 75/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision reinforces the principle of federal supremacy in immigration matters, limiting states' ability to enact their own immigration enforcement laws. It signals that state attempts to regulate activities related to immigration, even under the guise of public safety or anti-trafficking measures, are likely to face preemption challenges if they conflict with federal law.
Q: What precedent does Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. set?
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. established the following key holdings: (1) The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction, finding that the State of Texas failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that Annunciation House violated state law. (2) The court held that Texas's law prohibiting the "harboring" of undocumented immigrants was preempted by federal immigration law, as Congress has occupied the field of immigration regulation. (3) The appellate court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Annunciation House was likely to succeed on its preemption defense. (4) The Fifth Circuit found that the state's law was not a valid exercise of its police powers because it conflicted with federal immigration policy. (5) The court concluded that the district court's injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Annunciation House's operations and its ability to provide humanitarian aid.
Q: What are the key holdings in Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.?
1. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction, finding that the State of Texas failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that Annunciation House violated state law. 2. The court held that Texas's law prohibiting the "harboring" of undocumented immigrants was preempted by federal immigration law, as Congress has occupied the field of immigration regulation. 3. The appellate court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Annunciation House was likely to succeed on its preemption defense. 4. The Fifth Circuit found that the state's law was not a valid exercise of its police powers because it conflicted with federal immigration policy. 5. The court concluded that the district court's injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Annunciation House's operations and its ability to provide humanitarian aid.
Q: What cases are related to Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.?
Precedent cases cited or related to Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.: Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).
Q: What is federal preemption?
Federal preemption is a legal doctrine where federal law overrides or supersedes state law when the two conflict, or when Congress intends for federal law to exclusively govern a particular area, such as immigration.
Q: How did preemption apply in this case?
The court found that Texas's law criminalizing the provision of aid to migrants was preempted because it interfered with the federal government's comprehensive scheme for regulating immigration and border matters.
Q: What is the standard of review for a temporary injunction?
Appellate courts review a district court's decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction for an abuse of discretion. This means they look to see if the lower court made a clear error of law or fact.
Q: Did the court find an abuse of discretion?
No, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Annunciation House was likely to succeed on its preemption argument, and the injunction was necessary to prevent harm.
Q: What specific federal law was at issue?
While not a single statute, the court's analysis centered on the comprehensive federal immigration and nationality laws, including the federal government's broad authority over immigration.
Q: Can Texas criminalize helping migrants?
Based on this Fifth Circuit ruling, Texas cannot enforce laws that criminalize providing humanitarian aid to migrants if those laws are found to be preempted by federal immigration law.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. affect me?
This decision reinforces the principle of federal supremacy in immigration matters, limiting states' ability to enact their own immigration enforcement laws. It signals that state attempts to regulate activities related to immigration, even under the guise of public safety or anti-trafficking measures, are likely to face preemption challenges if they conflict with federal law. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What does this mean for organizations helping migrants?
It means organizations like Annunciation House can continue providing essential humanitarian services without immediate threat of state prosecution under laws deemed to conflict with federal immigration policy.
Q: What should a similar organization do if threatened with enforcement?
Such organizations should immediately consult with legal counsel experienced in immigration and constitutional law to understand their rights and potential defenses, such as preemption.
Q: What happens next in the case?
The temporary injunction remains in place, allowing Annunciation House to operate. The case will likely proceed to a full trial on the merits to determine the ultimate legality of the Texas law.
Q: Does this ruling affect all state laws regarding immigration?
No, this ruling specifically addresses the preemption of a Texas law that criminalized assisting migrants. Other state laws related to immigration may be evaluated differently based on their specific provisions and potential conflicts with federal law.
Historical Context (3)
Q: What is the history of state involvement in immigration regulation?
Historically, immigration has been considered primarily a federal responsibility. However, states have sometimes passed laws attempting to regulate aspects of immigration, leading to legal challenges based on federal preemption.
Q: Are there other cases where states tried to regulate immigration?
Yes, there have been numerous cases where states have passed laws related to immigration, such as Arizona's SB 1070, which were challenged and often struck down or modified due to federal preemption.
Q: What is the significance of the Fifth Circuit's ruling?
The ruling reinforces the principle that federal law governs immigration and that state laws cannot undermine federal objectives in this area, particularly concerning humanitarian concerns.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc.?
The docket number for Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. is 24-0573. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is the procedural posture of this case?
The case reached the Fifth Circuit on an appeal from a district court's grant of a temporary injunction. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion.
Q: What is the role of the Attorney General in this case?
The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, initiated the lawsuit on behalf of the State of Texas, seeking to shut down Annunciation House. His office represented the state on appeal.
Q: What is the burden of proof for the state in seeking an injunction?
The state had the burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and that the injunction served the public interest. The district court found the state failed to meet this burden.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)
Case Details
| Case Name | Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. |
| Citation | |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-05-30 |
| Docket Number | 24-0573 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 75 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the principle of federal supremacy in immigration matters, limiting states' ability to enact their own immigration enforcement laws. It signals that state attempts to regulate activities related to immigration, even under the guise of public safety or anti-trafficking measures, are likely to face preemption challenges if they conflict with federal law. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Federal preemption of state immigration law, Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Supremacy Clause, First Amendment rights of non-profits, Abuse of discretion standard for temporary injunctions, State police powers vs. federal authority |
| Jurisdiction | tx |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, and the State of Texas v. Annunciation House, Inc. was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Federal preemption of state immigration law or from the Texas Supreme Court:
-
Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services; And the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor; John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor; And Dr. Megan Mooney
Texas reporting law likely violates First Amendment for gender-affirming care providersTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
In Re Bell Helicopter Services Inc. and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Insurance policy exclusion for 'explosion' bars coverage for Bell Helicopter.Texas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
In Re Warwick Construction, Inc., Bustamante Construction, and Dlc General Construction Services, Inc.
Settlement Agreement Not Enforceable Due to Indefinite TermsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
The Mabee Ranch Royalty Partnership, L.P.; 315 Mr, Inc.; 93 Jm, Inc.; Rock River Minerals, Lp; Primitive Petroleum, Inc.; Austen Campbell, Co-Executor of the Estate of William Scott Campbell; Janet Campbell, Co-Executor of the Estate of William Scott Campbell; Osado Properties, Ltd.; And Judith Guidera, Trustee of the Morrison Oil & Gas Trust v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.; Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.; And Fasken Royalty Investments, Ltd.
Texas Court Affirms Royalty Calculations, Dismisses Breach of Duty ClaimsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Webb Consolidated Independent School District v. Robert Marshall and Amy Marshall
School district liable for injuries during "voluntary" extracurricular activityTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Howmet Aerospace, Inc. F/K/A Arconic, Inc., F/K/A Alcoa, Inc. v. Frank Burford, Individually and as Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Carolyn Burford, Deceased; Wesley Burford, Individually; And Leslie Schell, Individually
Texas Supreme Court: Settlement Release Covers Estate ClaimsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Ron Valk D/B/A Platinum Construction v. Copper Creek Distributors, Inc. and Jose Doniceth Escoffie
Subcontractor Fails to Prove Damages in Construction Payment DisputeTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and Sierra Club
TCEQ must apply BACT to greenhouse gas emissions for major source permits.Texas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17