Supreme Court Rules Texas Death Row Inmate Can Challenge DNA Testing Law

Understanding Gutierrez v. Saenz

On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in Gutierrez v. Saenz, holding that a Texas death row inmate has the legal standing to challenge the state’s restrictive DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause. This 6-3 decision has important implications for prisoners seeking post-conviction DNA testing and highlights ongoing tensions between state procedural rules and federal constitutional rights.

Background: The Crime and Conviction

Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder in 1998 for his involvement in the killing of Escolastica Harrison, who was stabbed to death in her mobile home. The State’s theory at trial was that Gutierrez wielded one of the two screwdrivers used in the stabbing. The jury convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Gutierrez has consistently maintained that the police coerced his confession that he was inside Harrison’s home, asserting that he never entered it and only thought his accomplices would rob an empty mobile home without harming anyone. His central argument is that he should not have been sentenced to death because he did not “actually cause” Harrison’s death, “intend to kill” her, or “anticipate that a human life would be taken”—all requirements for a death sentence under Texas law.

The Long Fight for DNA Testing

For nearly 15 years, Gutierrez has sought DNA testing of crime-scene evidence, such as Harrison’s nail scrapings, a loose hair, and various blood samples, to prove he was not in the home. This evidence, he argues, would demonstrate his ineligibility for the death penalty, even if he remains guilty of capital murder as a party to the robbery.

Texas’s Article 64 (also referred to as Chapter 64) allows DNA testing if a convicted person establishes by a “preponderance of the evidence” that they “would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained”. However, Texas courts repeatedly denied Gutierrez’s requests for DNA testing:

• 2010: The TCCA reasoned that even if his DNA was not found, it wouldn’t establish his innocence of capital murder because he could still be a party to the robbery that resulted in death.
• 2019: Courts again denied his motion, with the TCCA reiterating that DNA testing was unavailable solely to show death penalty ineligibility.

The Federal Lawsuit and Path to the Supreme Court

Gutierrez then filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that Texas’s DNA testing procedures violated his liberty interests in utilizing state post-conviction procedures. The District Court agreed in part, finding it fundamentally unfair that Texas provides a right to challenge a death sentence via habeas petitions but prevents obtaining DNA testing to support those petitions unless innocence of the underlying crime is established.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this judgment, holding that Gutierrez lacked standing because his claimed injury was not “redressable.” The appeals court reasoned that even if Gutierrez won his constitutional challenge, the prosecutor would be unlikely to allow testing given the state court’s previous rulings.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding that Gutierrez does have standing. The Court found the case indistinguishable from Reed v. Goertz (2023), another challenge to Texas’s DNA testing law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, emphasized that standing does not depend on whether a favorable decision will ultimately result in the prosecutor turning over evidence, or if the prosecutor might find another reason to deny the request. The Court rejected what it called an attempt to “manufacture mootness,” stating that “[h]olding otherwise would allow all manner of defendants to manufacture mootness.”

Key Legal Principles

The Gutierrez v. Saenz decision reinforces several important principles:

1. Liberty Interests in Post-Conviction Procedures: The ruling reaffirms that individuals convicted in state court have a “liberty interest in demonstrating [their] innocence with new evidence under state law.”
2. Redressability in Standing Analysis: A ruling in Gutierrez’s favor would provide a remedy for his injury “by removing the allegedly unconstitutional barrier” that Texas DNA-testing laws “erected between Gutierrez and the requested testing.”
3. Federal Court Jurisdiction: The decision clarifies that federal courts can review challenges to state DNA testing procedures when those procedures may unconstitutionally restrict access to evidence.

Dissenting Views

Justice Alito’s dissent argues that the ruling “blatantly alters” the Reed test and “muddies the waters of standing doctrine.” The dissent expressed concern about “decades-long delays” in capital cases and Texas’s “important interest” in finality.

Justice Thomas offered a more fundamental critique, arguing that the Court has “no business intervening in this case” because “Gutierrez’s suit rests on a non-existent ‘liberty interest,'” as the Due Process Clause, as originally understood, protects freedom from physical restraint and natural rights, not “entitlements to government benefits” like state-created post-conviction procedures.

Implications for Texas and Beyond

Access to the courts to pursue a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate certain success with respect to retaining their underlying protected interests. This is because individuals convicted in state court possess a “liberty interest in demonstrating [their] innocence with new evidence under state law,” meaning that a state-created right to post-conviction procedures can “beget yet other rights to procedures essential to the realization of the parent right.”

In Gutierrez v. Saenz, the Supreme Court affirmed that the redressability inquiry for standing in such a claim does not involve “a guess as to whether a favorable court decision will in fact ultimately cause the prosecutor to turn over the evidence.” Rather, a declaratory judgment that removes an “allegedly unconstitutional barrier” between the individual and the requested testing is sufficient to redress the injury.

The Court emphasized that a procedural due process claim “is not mooted by the defendant’s mid-appeal promise that, no matter the result of a lawsuit, the ultimate outcome will not change,” as allowing such an argument would permit defendants to “manufacture mootness.” This approach highlights that procedural due process is fundamentally about the right to a fair proceeding and access to the mechanisms intended to provide relief, and thus, courts must closely attend to the nature of the asserted constitutional right in Section 1983 cases, which in Gutierrez involved the denial of access to requested DNA evidence.

The Gutierrez v. Saenz ruling has significant implications for criminal justice in Texas and potentially nationwide:

1. Enhanced Access to Federal Courts: For Texas inmates, the ruling provides a clear path to challenge state DNA testing laws in federal court if they believe those laws unconstitutionally restrict their access to evidence.
2. Burden on State Prosecutors: It means that prosecutors cannot simply deny standing by stating they will not comply with a favorable court ruling.
3. Potential for More Litigation: This could lead to more federal §1983 litigation challenging the procedural aspects of Texas’s post-conviction DNA testing statute.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court’s decision does not guarantee that Gutierrez will receive DNA testing. Rather, it ensures that his constitutional challenge to Texas’s DNA testing procedures can proceed in federal court. The case now returns to the lower courts, where the merits of Gutierrez’s due process claim will be considered.

For Gutierrez himself, who has been on death row for over 25 years, this represents a significant but incremental victory. Shawn Nolan, a lawyer for Gutierrez, released this statement: “Today, Ruben Gutierrez is one step closer to proving that he was wrongfully sentenced to death.”

Broader Context

The Gutierrez v. Saenz case highlights the ongoing debate about the proper balance between finality in criminal proceedings and ensuring that potentially innocent individuals—or those wrongfully sentenced to death—have meaningful opportunities to prove their claims. It also underscores the complex interplay between state criminal procedures and federal constitutional rights.

As DNA technology continues to advance and play a crucial role in criminal justice, cases like Gutierrez v. Saenz will likely continue to shape how courts balance the competing interests of finality, federalism, and fundamental fairness in the American legal system.

The decision serves as a reminder that procedural hurdles should not become insurmountable barriers to justice, particularly in capital cases where the stakes could not be higher.

After 140 days of committee hearings, floor debates, public testimony, and political maneuvering inside the state Capitol, the 89th Texas Legislature wrapped up its regular session — leaving behind a wave of new Texas laws and even more unfinished business.

Lawmakers passed more than 1,300 bills—many addressing criminal, family, and personal injury law—while over 8,000 others failed to advance, reflecting a lower-than-usual passage rate of roughly 14 percent.

Among the most widely watched developments of the session was the fate of Senate Bill 3, a high-profile proposal to ban THC products that was vetoed by Governor Greg Abbott just before the midnight deadline on June 22 — a move that both stunned and divided state leadership while keeping Texas’ billion-dollar hemp industry alive for now. The governor’s veto foreshadows a looming special session, where the regulation of THC and other contentious issues will take center stage

In our 2025 legislative update, we take a look at 47 of the most interesting or impactful new Texas laws that made it past the finish line, as well as key proposals that failed to pass but remain on the radar for future sessions. Where there is political momentum and public interest, there is always the potential for revival.

New Texas Laws

1. Trey’s Law: Sexual Abuse Victims Will Not Be Silenced
SB 835, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 835 – commonly referred to as “Trey’s Law” – bans the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims of sexual abuse. The bill is named after Trey Carlock, a Dallas native who was abused as a child and later died by suicide after being required to sign an NDA as part of a settlement. The law applies to both child and adult victims and will also void existing NDAs that have previously prevented survivors from speaking out. Read more about Trey’s Law.

2. Grayson’s Law: Intoxication Manslaughter Penalties for Illegal Aliens
HB 2017, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 2017, known as “Grayson’s Law,” increases the mandatory minimum sentence for intoxication manslaughter from 2 years to 10 years if the defendant was unlawfully present in the United States at the time of the offense. Named in honor of Grayson Davis, a young victim killed by a suspected drunk driver without legal status, the law also bars those convicted under this provision from receiving community supervision, deferred adjudication, parole, or mandatory supervision until they have served at least 10 calendar years — without credit for good conduct time

3. Ultimate Punishment for Attempting to Kill Police
HB 1871, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law makes attempting to kill a peace officer in the line of duty a capital felony. That means it carries the same punishment range as capital murder — life without parole or, in some cases, the death penalty.

4. Tougher Laws for Sex Offenses
HB 1422, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation expands protections for victims of sex crimes and increases penalties for offenders — especially those targeting children. Key provisions include:

• Creates the new criminal offense of “continuous sexual abuse of adults” for individuals who commit multiple sex offenses against two or more victims within a 30-day period. This extends protections that previously only existed for child victims.
• Harsher Sentencing: Increases the severity of punishment for repeat and serial sex offenders by allowing courts to impose consecutive (stacked) sentences for multiple sexual assault convictions, regardless of the victim’s age. It also increases the category of punishment for certain offense if the offender has prior convictions and makes certain sex offenses punishable by life in prison if specific conditions are met.
• Restrictions on Probation and Parole: Offenders convicted of certain sex crimes are ineligible for probation, deferred adjudication or parole.

5. Crackdown on Child-Like Sex Dolls
HB 1443, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 1443 creates new criminal offenses targeting the possession and promotion of child-like sex dolls — anatomically correct devices that resemble children and are intended for sexual use. Possessing or promoting such dolls is now a felony offense in Texas. Promotion is a second-degree felony punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison. Possession with intent to promote is a third-degree felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison. Simple possession is a state jail felony punishable by up to six months in a state jail facility.

6. E-Cigarette Crackdown
SB 2024, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation tightens regulations on e-cigarette products to curb youth vaping by expanding the definition to include all vape substances—nicotine or not—and banning marketing tactics that appeal to minors, such as cartoon imagery, candy flavors, and products disguised as toys or school supplies. The law also prohibits e-cigarettes made in China or hostile nations and bans harmful additives like cannabinoids and tianeptine. Violations will now be classified by a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in county jail.

7. Bail Reform: Stricter Rules for Repeat and Violent Offenders
SB 9, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 9 aims to enhance public safety and improve consistency in pretrial release decisions. Key provisions of the new law include:

• Magistrates must use the Public Safety Report System (PSRS) – a centralized tool that compiles criminal history and risk data – before granting bail in felony cases, ensuring that decisions are informed by consistent, evidence-based information.
• Restrictions on Personal Bonds: The new Texas law restricts the use of personal bonds for individuals charged with violent or repeat offenses, especially those currently on parole or community supervision for violent crimes.
• Limits on Judicial Authority: Magistrates who are not higher court judges are prohibited from reducing or modifying bond amounts set by district court judges, and prosecutors can appeal bail decisions they consider too low, even if a judge has deemed the defendant safe for release.

8. Bail Judicial Transparency and Oversight
HB 75, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 75 tightens bail procedures by requiring magistrates to make written findings—especially if no probable cause is found—and expands use of the Public Safety Reporting System (PSRS) to give courts more criminal history information. The bill also shifts oversight of charitable bail organizations to the Office of Court Administration for statewide consistency and clarifies prosecutors’ ability to appeal bail decisions.

9. No Bail for Some Felonies
SJR 5, November Ballot

Senate Joint Resolution No. 5 (SJR 5) is a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Texas courts to deny bail for certain serious felony offenses if the prosecution can show that bail would not reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance in court or community safety. Offenses that could be considered for denied bail include violent crimes such as murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and continuous trafficking of persons, among others.

The resolution was passed by both the Texas Senate and House and has been filed with the Secretary of State for placement on the November 4, 2025, ballot. The governor’s signature is not required for constitutional amendments – it goes directly to Texas voters to decide at the next general election.

10. No Public Funds for Nonprofit Bail Assistance
SB 40, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 40 prohibits Texas counties, cities, and other local governments from using taxpayer money to fund nonprofit organizations that post bail for criminal defendants. The law is a response to concerns about public dollars underwriting bail efforts, particularly in places like Harris County. Under SB 40, any taxpayer or resident can sue for injunctive relief if a local government violates the law — and recover attorney’s fees if successful. While the bill imposes no new criminal penalties or costs at the state level, it may limit pretrial release options in communities that previously partnered with nonprofit bail funds.

11. Cosmetologists: Domestic Violence Awareness Training
HB 837, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation requires students and licensed professionals in the beauty industry to complete instruction on identifying and assisting victims of domestic abuse. The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation must ensure it’s part of both school curriculums and continuing education. By equipping beauty professionals—who often have close, regular contact with clients—lawmakers hope to increase early detection and support for victims.

12. Bank “Jugging” is Now a Felony
HB 1902, Effective Sept 1, 2025

Over the past several years, a crime trend called “bank jugging” or “jugging” has grown in popularity — when a suspect follows someone from a bank, ATM, or financial institution with the intent to steal, often targeting cash withdrawals. Lawmakers have now made that conduct a standalone offense. It is generally a state jail felony, punished by up to a year behind bars, but penalties can increase significantly — up to life in prison — if the jugging is committed in conjunction with burglary or robbery. This legislative change allows prosecutors to specifically charge jugging, rather than relying solely on broader robbery or burglary statutes.

13. Increased Penalties for Organized Retail Theft
SB 1300, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

In an effort to deter organized retail theft, this legislation increases penalties for such offenses in Texas. The law raises the punishment for higher-value thefts: stealing goods worth $300,000 or more is now a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison and a fine up to $250,000. Previously, this would have been a second-degree felony.

The bill also simplifies prosecution. Prosecutors no longer need to itemize every stolen product in the indictment; they can charge offenders based on the total monetary value stolen from a merchant. Additionally, unaltered price tags are now accepted as evidence of value and ownership, and prior theft offenses can be used to show intent or participation in organized theft rings.

14. Special Appointments in Suits Affecting Child-Parent Relationship
HB 2530, Effective Sept.1, 2025

This law clarifies and updates the process for appointing amicus attorneys and other special roles involved in family court cases involving the parent-child relationship. It is intended to streamline family court procedures by establishing clear standards for when and how courts can appoint amicus attorneys, ensuring these appointments are necessary to protect the best interests of the child. The court must consider the parties’ ability to pay reasonable fees and balance the child’s interests against the cost of the parties.

15. New Rules for Non-Parent Custody
HB 2350, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation sets clearer standards for non-parents, such as aunts, uncles, grandparents or family friends who want to file for custody of a child. It requires these caregivers to have provided exclusive care for the child for at least six months before filing for custody. If both of the child’s parents are deceased, the law expands eligibility to include more distant relatives – up to fourth-degree relatives, such as great uncles, great aunts, or cousins once removed. By requiring non-parent caregivers to have provided exclusive care for at least six months before filing for custody, the law helps ensure that only those who have established a significant, stable relationship with the child can initiate custody proceedings.

16. Timely Billing for Injury-Related Healthcare
HB 4145, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law requires healthcare providers to send billing statements to a patient’s attorney, if represented, within 11 months of providing personal-injury-related services. It addresses a loophole that previously allowed providers to lose payment rights if bills were sent to attorneys instead of patients within the required timeframe. The law ensures providers are fairly compensated while aligning billing practices with common legal procedures in personal injury cases.

17. New Rules for Preserving DWI Toxicology Evidence
SB1660, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 1660 establishes clear requirements for the retention and destruction of toxicological evidence in intoxication-related criminal cases, such as DWIs. Crime laboratories must annually notify the appropriate county prosecutor’s office of their possession of such evidence, providing both the date of receipt and the date the retention period will expire. Toxicological evidence must be preserved for the length of a defendant’s sentence or supervision, or—if there is no conviction—until acquittal or dismissal with prejudice. Once the retention period expires, evidence cannot be destroyed without first notifying the prosecutor, who then has 60 or 90 days (depending on the offense) to object in writing. The law strengthens communication protocols between labs and prosecutors to prevent premature disposal of evidence.

18. New Felony for Obscene Child Imagery
SB 20, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation makes it a criminal offense to possess, view, or promote visual material that obscenely depicts a child—whether the material involves a real child, an animation, a cartoon, or an AI-generated image. The new law is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in a state jail facility. If the defendant has previously been convicted once for similar offenses, the charge is elevated to a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If previously convicted two or more times for similar offenses, it becomes a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

19. Deadly Conduct Law Amended for Peace Officers
SB1637, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Under current law, a person commits the offense of deadly conduct if they knowingly point a firearm at or in the direction of another individual, regardless of whether they believe the firearm is loaded. This legislation amends the law to exclude peace officers from this provision when they are lawfully acting in their official capacity. As a result, peace officers will not be charged with deadly conduct for pointing a firearm at or in the direction of another person while performing their lawful duties.

20. Stricter Penalties for Election Fraud
HB 5115, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Under this new law, knowingly counting invalid votes, altering reports to include invalid votes, refusing to count valid votes, or altering reports to exclude valid votes are now explicitly classified as election fraud. The bill raises the general penalty for election fraud from a Class A misdemeanor to a second-degree felony, and if the offense is committed by an elected official acting in their official capacity, the penalty is elevated to a first-degree felony.

21. Protecting Officers from Frivolous Suits
SB 2750, Effective Immediately

This legislation amends the Texas Penal Code to provide clear legal protection for peace officers and correctional facility guards who use less-lethal force weapons—such as stun guns, chemical sprays, or impact devices—in the course of their official duties. The new law establishes that officers are justified in using such force if their actions are in substantial compliance with their training, helping to prevent unwarranted lawsuits and ensuring officers can safely de-escalate situations without fear of undue legal consequences.

22. AG to Prosecute Trafficking if DA’s Don’t
HB 45, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law mandates that the Texas Attorney General must step in to prosecute human trafficking cases if a local district attorney fails to act within six months of receiving a law enforcement report. The law ensures that serious trafficking offenses are not neglected due to prosecutorial inaction and mandates law enforcement to notify both the local DA and the AG simultaneously. If the DA doesn’t move forward, the AG is required to takeover—unless a judge confirms prosecution is underway.

23. No Parole for Traffickers of Children or Disabled Individuals
HB 2306, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Under this new law, those convicted and sentenced for specified trafficking crimes—including cases where the victim is a child or a person with disabilities—are ineligible for release on parole, joining the ranks of offenders already barred from parole for the most serious violent crimes.

24. Harsher Penalties for Criminals Wearing Body Armor
HB 108, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation increases penalties for individuals who commit crimes while wearing metal or body armor. If used during a Class A misdemeanor or felony (excluding first-degree felonies), the offense is bumped up one category — raising, for example, a third-degree felony to a second-degree.

25. Expanded Support for Sexual Assault Survivors
HB 47, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law strengthens victim protections by ensuring they receive information about their rights, access to victim compensation, and the opportunity to participate in the parole process. It covers reimbursement for post-exam medical care, expands certification for sexual assault nurse examiners, requires hospitals to train staff, and mandates rideshare companies conduct sex offender background checks.

26. Organized Oilfield Theft Prevention Unit
HB 48, Effective Immediately

This legislation establishes a dedicated oilfield theft prevention unit within the Texas Department of Public Safety, tasked with enforcing laws, conducting training, and developing strategies to crack down on the growing problem of oilfield theft in regions like the Permian Basin—a crime estimated to cost the state billions annually. The new unit will also run public awareness campaigns and report biannually to the legislature on its progress, aiming to dismantle organized criminal networks targeting energy infrastructure.

27. Fentanyl Child Endangerment Act
HB 166, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law broadens the existing offense of endangering a child or elderly/ disabled person via methamphetamine exposure to include fentanyl and any controlled substances labeled Penalty Group 1-B. This law specifically excludes lawful medical use, such as fentanyl administered by an anesthesiologist.

28. Life of the Mother Act
SB 3, Effective Immediately

The Life of the Mother Act clarifies Texas’s abortion ban exceptions, making it clear that doctors can legally perform abortions in medical emergencies to save a woman’s life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function. The law aligns language across Texas statutes, specifies that the threat to the mother does not need to be “imminent,” and provides legal protections for physicians acting within these guidelines. It also requires continuing education for doctors and attorneys on the law’s nuances.

29. Criminal Penalties for School Vendor Conflicts
HB 210, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law makes it a criminal offense for vendors to do business with school districts or charter schools when board members or any close relations hold significant financial stakes or receive gifts that cost greater than $250. The purpose of this legislation is to strengthen ethical standards and ensure fair use of taxpayer resources.

30. Credit Card Fraud Cases Easier to Enforce
HB 272, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation expands venue rules for prosecuting the offense of fraudulent use and possession of credit/ debit card information. It does this by allowing cases to be filed in the county where the offense occurred or in the county where the victim resides. This also enhances prosecutorial flexibility and victim accessibility for these types of crimes by simplifying the proof of intent by treating them like other fraud offenses. This law does not create new crimes, but rather makes existing ones easier to enforce

31. Crackdown on AI-Generated Sex Content with Minors
HB 581 Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law cracks down and updates rules on AI-generated sexual content involving minors by imposing clear requirements on platforms. These include age verification for users, consent and adult status for image sources, privacy protections on user data, and increased civil fines for violations. It defines “artificial sexual material harmful to minors” as material in which a real person is distinguishable by appearance and applies to commercial entities that provide an online tool to create such material or make such material publicly available.

32. Asp-Morgan Act
HB 654, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

The Asp-Morgan Act adds to current laws under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code by allowing certain hunters charged with illegal deer hunting – specifically those who inadvertently violate antler spread rules for deer – to have their case dismissed under specified conditions. The key requirements include a self-report, plea, course completion, no prior record, and proper carcass disposal.

33. Human Trafficking Prevention and First Responder Training
HB 742, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This bill strengthens Texas’s efforts to combat human trafficking by requiring comprehensive training for first responders to recognize and respond to trafficking situations. This bill also mandates that certain health care facilities provide clear information about human trafficking to patients and visitors to increase public awareness. Additionally, it offers protections for facility employees who report suspected trafficking, shielding them from retaliation and encouraging proactive intervention.

34. Human Trafficking Prevention in Health Care Settings
HB 754, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This bill strengthens Texas’s response to human trafficking by requiring medical assistants in certain health care facilities to complete specialized training on how to recognize and report trafficking. The bill also mandates that these facilities display clear, multilingual signs with information on identifying and reporting suspected trafficking, making resources visible to both staff and the public. Importantly, this bill protects employees from retaliation if they report suspected trafficking in good faith, encouraging a safer environment and supporting early detection and intervention in trafficking cases

35. Confidentiality for Protective Order Applicants
HB 793, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new legislation in Texas strengthens the confidentiality of personal information for individuals who apply for or are protected by a protective order. This law mandates that courts honor requests to keep sensitive details such as home addresses and contact information confidential and shielded from public access. This enhanced privacy measure is designed to protect survivors from potential harm or retaliation, fostering a safer environment and encouraging more individuals to seek legal protection without fear of exposing their personal information.

36. Legal Protection for Cave Businesses
HB 1130, Effective Immediately

Texas’s new cavern liability law provides limited legal protection to businesses that operate commercial caverns for recreational or educational purposes. Under this legislation, operators are shielded from lawsuits for injuries, emotional distress, death, property damage, or other losses sustained during cavern activities, as long as a clearly worded warning sign prescribed by statute is posted at every cavern entrance. However, this protection does not apply if harm results from the operator’s negligence, such as failing to address known hazards or inadequately training employees, or from intentional misconduct. The law is designed to balance the promotion of cavern tourism with the need for participant safety and accountability

37. Texas Limits CPS Removals for “Neglect”
HB 1151, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law strengthens protections for parental rights when it comes to making medical decisions for their children. Under this legislation, parents cannot lose custody or have their parental rights terminated simply for making reasonable choices about their child’s medical care, such as declining psychotropic medications or choosing alternative treatments, unless those decisions create a substantial risk of harm to the child. The law also narrows the definition of neglect, limiting the circumstances under which Child Protective Services can intervene. At the same time, it preserves the state’s ability to step in when a child’s safety is genuinely at risk, striking a careful balance between protecting families and ensuring child welfare.

38. Tougher Penalties for Misuse of Official Information
HB 2001, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law elevates penalties for the offense of misuse of information based on the net pecuniary gain to the offender. Abuse cases less than $150,000 remain a third-degree felony; abuses between $150,000-$300,000 are upgraded to a second-degree felony; and abuse of $300,000 or more becomes a first-degree felony. This law addresses disparity, targets corruption and insider abuse, and is expected to have no major budget impact on state or local governments

39. Felony Charges for Certain Court Order Violations
HB 2073, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 2073 increases criminal penalties for violating court orders or bond conditions in cases involving family violence, child abuse, sexual assault, indecent assault, stalking, or trafficking. While most violations remain a Class A misdemeanor, repeat or aggravated violations, including those following a conviction or involving assault, are now prosecuted as felonies, with penalties ranging up to a third-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison. The law aims to better protect victims and deter repeat offenders by treating serious or repeated violations more harshly.

40. Video Testimony for Elderly and Disabled Witnesses
HB 2348, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

A new Texas law makes it easier for the testimony of elderly or disabled individuals to be preserved and presented in criminal cases. Courts can now order that depositions from these vulnerable witnesses be video recorded if either side requests it. This change helps ensure that important testimony is not lost simply because a witness is unable to appear in court physically. To maintain the integrity of the process, the video must be properly authenticated, and the person who operated the recording equipment must be available to confirm its accuracy. This update streamlines the use of video testimony, making it more accessible while still protecting the rights of all parties involved.

The devastating Memorial Day weekend tragedy at Grapevine Lake that claimed the life of 18-year-old Ava Moore presents multiple avenues for civil litigation and raises complex questions about liability, negligent entrustment, and insurance coverage. As the Moore family grieves the loss of their daughter — an Air Force Academy Preparatory School graduate weeks away from basic training — they face critical decisions regarding potential wrongful death and survival action claims.

In this article, our personal injury attorneys explain the legal implications surrounding the Grapevine Lake accident, including who may be held liable, the potential for wrongful death and survival action claims, the challenges involved in securing compensation in boating and jet ski incidents and what steps grieving families should take to protect their rights and pursue justice.

What Happened on Grapevine Lake?

On May 25, 2025, at approximately 5:20 p.m., Ava Moore was kayaking near Oak Grove Park on Grapevine Lake when she was struck from behind by a jet ski operated by 21-year-old Daikerlyn Alejandra Gonzalez-Gonzalez.

According to arrest affidavits, the jet ski was traveling at a high rate of speed and dangerously close to other people in the water. Witnesses told investigators that Moore and other kayakers tried to paddle away before she was struck from behind.

Lisa Scrabeck, a witness at the lake, helped render aid to Ava Moore after she was pulled ashore. She checked for a pulse and heartbeat and confirmed that Moore was wearing a life jacket, which was removed before CPR began. Despite immediate medical attention, Moore died from severe head trauma at the hospital.

The jet ski driver fled the scene with 21-year-old Maikel Coello Perozo, crashing into multiple vehicles during their escape. Police found both suspects at a Dallas residence with packed suitcases — suggesting they did not plan to return home anytime soon.

Who Can Be Held Responsible in a Boating or Jet Ski Accident?

In the aftermath of the Grapevine Lake accident, many people are wondering who can be held responsible for Moore’s tragic death. Wrongful death cases involving personal watercraft can involve multiple parties, depending on the facts of the incident. Responsibility may fall on the operator, the craft’s owner, or even a rental company — particularly if safety regulations were violated or the watercraft was negligently entrusted to an unqualified or reckless driver.

Below is a breakdown of potential civil liability in fatal boating and jet ski accidents, with a focus on direct operator responsibility, negligent entrustment by private owners, and possible liability by rental companies.

1. Direct Operator Liability

The woman accused of operating the jet ski, Daikerlyn Alejandra Gonzalez-Gonzalez, faces multiple criminal charges, including second-degree felony manslaughter charges, reckless operation and excessive speed of a personal watercraft, and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. These serious charges not only carry criminal consequences but also serve as strong evidence for civil liability under several legal theories:

Negligence Per Se:
In many recreational boating accident cases, victims may pursue civil claims under the doctrine of negligence per se. This legal principle holds that if an individual or entity violates a law intended to protect public safety — and that violation results in harm — the violation itself may be presumed to be the cause of the injury. Gonzalez’s alleged violations of Texas personal watercraft regulations provide a compelling foundation for a negligence per se claim.

Reckless/Wanton Misconduct:

Eyewitness Lisa Scrabeck reported seeing the women on the jet ski “driving recklessly” throughout the day. According to the arrest warrant, multiple witnesses stated that the suspect “recklessly made several passes along the shoreline with wanton disregard for the safety of others and at a speed and manner that endangered those in the area.” This type of behavior may rise to the level of gross negligence or wanton misconduct, further strengthening the case for civil liability.

2. Negligent Entrustment Claims

In addition to holding the jet ski operator accountable, liability may extend to the person or entity who allowed the operator to use the watercraft in the first place. This legal concept is known as negligent entrustment — when someone provides access to a dangerous instrument, like a jet ski, knowing or having reason to know the user is unfit to operate it safely.

Depending on who owned the jet ski involved in the Grapevine Lake accident, either a private individual or a rental company could face civil liability. Authorities with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department are currently investigating the ownership of the craft. If it turns out that the watercraft was entrusted to an unqualified or reckless driver, the owner — whether private or a rental company — could be held responsible for the fatal outcome.

Jet Ski Owner Liability: If a boat or jet ski owner allows a person to operate a vehicle in an unsafe manner, the owner may be held responsible for negligent entrustment. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department officials are investigating the ownership of the craft. If Gonzalez was not the owner, the actual owner could face liability for:

• Entrusting the watercraft to an unlicensed or inexperienced operator
• Failing to provide adequate safety instructions
• Knowing or having reason to know of the operator’s propensity for reckless behavior

If Daikerlyn Gonzalez-Gonzalez was not the owner, the individual who allowed her to use the jet ski could face serious legal consequences under these principles.

Rental Company Liability: Law enforcement is still determining if the jet ski was rented. Even if that fact does not become central in this case, rental company liability is a key factor in many boating accident claims. Rental facilities have a legal duty to ensure every vessel is properly inspected, maintained, and safely entrusted to qualified users. If the jet ski was rented, the company could face liability for:

• Negligent entrustment by rental facility if the facility did not provide safety instruction or have proper safety instructions posted; if the rental facility did not conduct a proper demonstration or check ride; or if the renter is not 18 or does not have boater safety education credentials.
• Failure to verify operator competency
• Inadequate safety briefing or training

Insurance Coverage for Boats & Jet Skis: Texas Doesn’t Require It

Unlike automobile insurance, which is mandatory, Texas does not require insurance for personal watercraft or boats. This regulatory gap can leave accident victims with limited options for financial recovery. Although insurance isn’t legally required, lenders often mandate coverage if the watercraft is financed.

Insurance for Rentals

Jet ski rental companies, on the other hand, typically carry comprehensive liability insurance as part of their business operations. These policies may include:

• Third-party liability for bodily injury and property damage
• Coverage for damage to the rental equipment while under customer control
• General liability for incidents occurring on the premises
• Professional liability for claims involving inadequate training or instruction

If the jet ski involved in the Grapevine Lake accident was rented rather than privately owned, this could significantly improve the family’s ability to recover damages. Businesses that rent out watercraft — including marinas, docks, and yacht clubs — are strongly encouraged to carry Personal Watercraft (PWC) insurance, which typically includes liability protection for bodily injuries caused by a rented vessel.

Potential Coverage Sources

Because Texas law does not require watercraft insurance, it’s vital to identify every possible coverage source after a boating or jet ski accident. These may include:

• Rental Company Insurance:
  If the jet ski was rented, the rental company’s commercial liability policy is often the most substantial and reliable source of coverage. These policies usually include high liability limits to cover injuries, death, or property damage caused by the rented watercraft.
• Owner’s Watercraft Insurance Policy:
  |If the jet ski was privately owned, the owner’s boat or personal watercraft policy may offer liability coverage. This can include payments for bodily injury, death, or property damage, as well as legal defense costs if a lawsuit is filed.
• Homeowner’s Insurance:
  In some cases, small boats or personal watercraft may be covered under a homeowner’s policy. However, this coverage is typically limited in scope and may not include liability for accidents occurring away from the home.
• Operator’s Personal Liability Coverage:
  Even in the absence of dedicated watercraft insurance, the operator may have umbrella liability or homeowner’s liability insurance that provides secondary coverage for injuries or damages caused while operating a jet ski.

Why It Matters

The absence of mandatory watercraft insurance in Texas makes uncovering all potential insurance policies critical in wrongful death and serious injury cases. Just like on the road, accidents happen on the water — and victims should not be left without a path to recovery simply because coverage wasn’t required.

Unique Challenges in Grapevine Lake Jet Ski Accident

The civil litigation process arising from the Grapevine Lake jet ski crash faces a number of complex challenges — primarily due to the legal status of the individuals involved. Both suspects are Venezuelan nationals who reportedly entered the United States illegally and are now subject to ICE detainers and removal proceedings. These immigration issues create several serious obstacles for victims or their families seeking civil justice and financial compensation:

1. Limited Assets Available for Judgment Satisfaction
Individuals without lawful immigration status are often not financially established in the U.S. and may lack insurable interests, verifiable income, or significant assets such as real estate or vehicles. Even if a civil judgment is obtained against a liable party, there may be little to no property or funds to seize in satisfaction of that judgment.

2. Risk of Deportation Complicating Collection Efforts
Because both suspects are in removal proceedings, there is a real possibility that one or both may be deported before a civil case is resolved. Deportation can stall or completely undermine the ability to collect a judgment, particularly if the individual returns to a country with limited legal cooperation or no reciprocal enforcement of U.S. civil judgments. Once removed, tracking, serving, or compelling their participation in a U.S. court proceeding becomes exceedingly difficult.

3. Urgency of Discovery and Asset Preservation
Given these risks, time is of the essence in any civil case involving defendants facing removal. Attorneys representing the victim’s family would likely need to pursue expedited discovery, including early depositions and aggressive efforts to identify and freeze any assets before they are transferred or rendered inaccessible. This may include:

• Filing for pre-judgment writs of garnishment or attachment
• Requesting temporary restraining orders to prevent asset dissipation
• Subpoenaing financial institutions or third parties for asset information

In short, while there may be strong grounds for civil liability, collecting any damages from these defendants may prove extremely difficult. This makes it all the more important to identify alternative avenues for recovery — such as insurance coverage through a rental company or third-party liability — and to act quickly before immigration proceedings interfere with the litigation process.

Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

Wrongful Death Claims

Under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, certain surviving family members may recover damages for the personal losses they suffer as a result of their loved one’s death. These claims are designed to compensate the surviving family — not the deceased’s estate.

Eligible Claimants
Only the surviving spouse, children, or parents of the deceased may file a wrongful death claim in Texas. In this case, Moore’s parents are legally permitted to bring the claim.

Recoverable Damages:

• Mental anguish, emotional pain, and suffering
• Loss of love, companionship, comfort, and society
• Loss of future earning capacity (especially significant given Moore’s military career path)
• Funeral and burial expenses
• Exemplary (punitive) damages, if the facts show gross negligence or willful misconduct

Survival Action Claims

A survival action is brought on behalf of the decedent’s estate and addresses the harm suffered by the deceased between the time of injury and death. Unlike wrongful death claims, survival actions do not compensate surviving family members directly — rather, any recovery becomes part of the estate and is distributed according to a will or intestacy laws.

Recoverable Damages:

• Conscious pain and suffering experienced before death
• Medical expenses related to the fatal injury
• Lost wages between the time of injury and death
• Property damage (e.g., kayak or personal belongings)
• Funeral expenses (if not already recovered through a wrongful death claim)

Statute of Limitations

Both wrongful death and survival action claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations in Texas. This means a lawsuit must be filed within two years of the date of death.

For Moore — who tragically passed away on May 25, 2025 — the deadline to file either claim is May 25, 2027.

Additional Causes of Action

In addition to direct operator liability and negligent entrustment, several other legal theories may support civil claims in the Grapevine Lake accident, depending on the specific facts uncovered during the investigation.

1. Premises Liability – Lake/Park Management

If the entity responsible for managing Grapevine Lake or Oak Grove Park failed to take reasonable steps to ensure public safety, they may be held liable under a premises liability theory. Potential failures may include:

• Inadequate patrolling of waterways to monitor reckless behavior
• Failure to enforce speed restrictions or designated safety zones
• Lack of adequate signage or warning systems for boaters and swimmers
• Failure to properly separate conflicting recreational activities (e.g., swimming areas vs. high-speed watercraft zones)

2. Dram Shop Liability

Under Texas Dram Shop laws, bars and restaurants can be held legally responsible if they serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later causes injury or death. While it has not yet been determined whether alcohol played a role in this incident, liability may arise if it’s shown that the jet ski operator was overserved and obtained alcohol from a licensed establishment prior to the crash.

3. Product Liability

If a mechanical failure contributed to the accident, product liability or maintenance negligence claims may also be viable. These could include:

• Manufacturing defects in the jet ski that made it unsafe for operation
• Negligence by a maintenance provider in inspecting, repairing, or servicing the watercraft
• Failure of safety equipment, such as throttle controls, kill switches, or life vests, due to design or production flaws

Strategic Litigation Considerations

Given the urgency of potential deportation proceedings, several critical steps must be taken immediately to preserve the viability of any future litigation. Asset investigation represents the most time-sensitive priority, as counsel must locate and preserve all potential sources of recovery before defendants leave the jurisdiction. This includes identifying bank accounts, real estate holdings, business interests, and any other assets that could satisfy a judgment.

Simultaneously, comprehensive insurance discovery must be undertaken to identify all applicable policies that might provide coverage for the incident. This includes not only obvious liability policies but also umbrella coverage, marine insurance, and any specialty policies that defendants or related entities may carry. The identification of insurance coverage often proves crucial to meaningful recovery in maritime accident cases.

Evidence preservation cannot be delayed, as witness memories fade and physical evidence deteriorates or disappears. Securing detailed witness statements from all available parties, obtaining surveillance footage from nearby establishments or vessels, and documenting the physical condition of the vessel and accident scene are essential steps that become increasingly difficult with time. The transient nature of the maritime environment makes prompt evidence collection particularly critical.

Finally, the retention of qualified experts should begin immediately to ensure their availability and to begin the process of accident reconstruction while evidence remains fresh. Marine safety experts can analyze the vessel’s condition and operational procedures, accident reconstruction specialists can determine causation and fault allocation, and economic experts will be necessary to quantify damages. Early expert involvement often proves invaluable in developing case strategy and identifying additional avenues of investigation.

The Moore family deserves justice for their tragic loss, and the civil justice system provides the primary avenue for accountability when the criminal system alone cannot adequately address the full scope of harm caused by such reckless conduct.

Loved One Killed or Injured In a Boating Accident? Contact Us.

Varghese Summersett is a premier personal injury firm serving clients across the state of Texas. With offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston, our team is strategically positioned to handle serious injury and wrongful death cases wherever they arise — from major metropolitan areas to smaller communities throughout the Lone Star State.

We are known for delivering exceptional, client-focused representation rooted in experience, compassion, and results. We understand the physical, emotional, and financial toll of catastrophic injuries and wrongful death. Call 817-203-2220 for a free consultation with an experienced boating accident attorney today.

Texas Governor Vetoes THC Ban: What It Means for Consumers, Businesses, and Politics

In a late-night decision that sent shockwaves through Texas politics, Governor Greg Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) just before midnight on June 22, 2025, preserving the state’s $8 billion hemp industry and avoiding what critics called a legal disaster waiting to happen.

The Midnight Veto

As the clock approached midnight on Sunday, Governor Abbott made a decision that would affect millions of Texans: he vetoed SB 3, a bill that would have banned virtually all hemp-derived THC products in the state, including popular delta-8 and delta-9 products.

The governor didn’t mince words about his reasoning. Calling the bill “well-intentioned” but fundamentally flawed, Abbott warned it would face “valid constitutional challenges” and pointed directly to Arkansas, where similar legislation has been tied up in federal court for nearly two years.

What Would Have Happened If SB 3 Became Law?

Had Abbott signed the bill, Texas would have witnessed a seismic shift in how the state treats hemp products. The possession, production, or distribution of hemp-derived THC products would have become criminal offenses overnight, with many violations carrying felony charges. This wasn’t just about removing products from store shelves—it was about potentially criminalizing thousands of Texans who currently use these products legally.

An $8 billion industry supporting over 50,000 jobs would have collapsed, leaving legitimate business owners who built their companies under current law suddenly operating outside it.

Millions of Texans who rely on these products for legitimate wellness purposes would have lost access overnight. Veterans managing PTSD, seniors dealing with chronic pain, and everyday Texans who chose hemp products over pharmaceuticals would have been forced to either break the law or suffer without alternatives.

The Constitutional Problem: Why Federal Law Matters

Abbott’s veto wasn’t just political calculation—it was based on solid legal ground. SB 3 would have faced immediate challenges. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp and hemp-derived products containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC nationwide. Lawsuits had already been prepared to challenge SB3 had it been enacted, arguing the new law would have been a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Abbott specifically cited Arkansas’s experience, where a federal judge blocked a similar ban. That state’s law has been unenforceable for nearly two years as it winds through the courts—a scenario Texas has now avoided.

Legal experts also criticized SB 3’s vague language around “intoxicating cannabinoids.” This ambiguity would have made it nearly impossible for businesses and consumers to know what was legal, raising serious due process concerns.

A Rare Republican Split: Abbott vs. Patrick

The veto exposed a significant rift within Texas Republican leadership, pitting Governor Abbott against Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in an unusually public dispute.

Patrick’s Position: Prohibition at All Costs

Lt. Governor Patrick, who made SB 3 one of his top five legislative priorities in 17 years, accused Abbott of abandoning families and law enforcement. Patrick’s camp argued that only a complete ban could protect children from what they called predatory marketing by the hemp industry.

“SB 3, to ban the sale of Delta 8 and 9 THC products to protect our children, passed the Senate 30-1. It had the votes to pass the House. Overwhelming bipartisan support. Sadly, the Gov vetoed it. I’m asking the Speaker to join me in passing it again in the special.” — Office of the Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (@LtGovTX) June 23, 2025

Abbott’s Pragmatism: Regulate, Don’t Ban

Governor Abbott’s position reflected a more nuanced understanding of both political reality and practical governance. Polls consistently showed that most Texans, including a majority of Republicans, prefer sensible regulation over outright prohibition. The governor recognized that the hemp industry contributes billions to Texas’s economy—money that would disappear overnight under a ban, likely pushing the market underground where no regulations or consumer protections exist.

Veterans groups played a particularly influential role in Abbott’s decision. Their advocacy highlighted how many former service members rely on hemp products to manage PTSD and chronic pain without the side effects of traditional pharmaceuticals. Small business owners who had invested their life savings into legitimate hemp businesses under current law also made their voices heard, warning that a ban would destroy livelihoods built on following the rules.

By choosing regulation over a ban, Abbott kept the door open for Texas to create a framework that protects consumers, especially minors, while preserving a legitimate industry.

What Happens Next: The July Special Session

Abbott didn’t just veto the bill—he called a special legislative session for July 21, 2025, specifically to address hemp regulation. The session will likely focus on:

• Age Restrictions: Limiting sales to adults 21 and over
• Child-Resistant Packaging: Requirements to prevent accidental consumption by minors
• Potency Limits: Establishing maximum THC levels for different products
• Clear Labeling: Ensuring consumers know exactly what they’re buying
• Enforcement Authority: Likely giving oversight to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission

The special session promises to be contentious, with Patrick and his allies expected to push for stricter measures while the industry and moderate Republicans advocate for workable regulations.

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters Beyond Texas

Texas’s decision reverberates far beyond state lines, signaling a potential shift in how conservative states approach hemp regulation. The veto reinforces a fundamental principle of federalism: states cannot simply override federal hemp laws, no matter how strong the political pressure. This reality check could influence legislators in other red states considering similar bans.

More significantly, Texas may now become an unlikely laboratory for sensible hemp regulation. If the state can craft rules that protect public health while preserving a legitimate industry, it could provide a model for other conservative states struggling with the same issues. The alternative—continued attempts at prohibition that inevitably fail in court—offers nothing but wasted time and taxpayer money.

The political implications are equally fascinating. The Abbott-Patrick split reveals changing Republican attitudes toward cannabis-related products, suggesting the old “just say no” approach is losing ground even in deeply conservative circles. This evolution reflects broader demographic and generational changes within the party, as younger conservatives increasingly view hemp products through an economic and personal freedom lens rather than a moral one.

Economically, preserving a multi-billion dollar industry in the nation’s second-largest state sends a clear message to investors and entrepreneurs: the hemp industry has a future in America, even in states not typically associated with cannabis reform. This stability could accelerate innovation and investment in safer, better-regulated products—exactly the opposite of what prohibition would achieve.

Understanding Gubernatorial Vetoes in Texas

While Abbott vetoed 26 bills this session (and 77 in 2023), high-profile vetoes like SB 3 are relatively rare. The Texas governor’s veto power is particularly strong after the legislative session ends, as lawmakers cannot override it without a special session—which only the governor can call.

Key Takeaways from the SB 3 Veto for Texans

Looking Ahead

The July special session will determine whether Texas can craft sensible regulations that protect consumers—especially minors—while preserving a legitimate industry and respecting federal law.

The outcome of the special session will determine whether Texas becomes a model for regulated hemp markets or continues down a path of legal and political conflict. For now, the status quo remains, giving all sides time to prepare for what promises to be one of the most watched legislative battles of 2025.

This article will be updated as more information becomes available about the July 21 special session and any new legislative proposals.

Massage parlor raids in Texas have become increasingly common as law enforcement agencies target businesses suspected of prostitution, solicitation, and human trafficking. These operations are often the result of long-term investigations involving local police, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), and sometimes federal agencies. Whether you are a client, employee, or business owner, being implicated in one of these raids can carry severe legal and personal consequences.

In this article, the defense attorneys at Varghese Summersett explain massage parlor busts in Texas, the criminal charges that can result, and why it is critical to act immediately if you have been arrested or accused of a sex crime. We also outline the recent changes in Texas law that allow the TDLR to shut down businesses suspected of illegal activity — even before formal charges are filed.

Recent Massage Parlor Raids in Fort Worth

In recent months, multiple massage parlors in Fort Worth have been raided and shut down after investigations uncovered suspected illegal activity. Violations have included employees working without proper licenses, evidence of illegal services being offered to customers, and suggestive online advertising of illicit services. The ongoing crackdown has been led by the Fort Worth Police Department and TDLR, and similar enforcement actions have occurred in other Texas cities, including Round Rock and Houston.

A recent change in Texas law now allows TDLR to issue emergency closure orders for businesses suspected of illegal activity — even before any criminal charges are filed. These massage parlor stings are a preemptive tool when there is credible evidence of human trafficking, sexual misconduct, or criminal operations masked as legitimate business.

Common Charges From Massage Parlor Busts in Texas

When law enforcement raids a massage parlor suspected of illegal activity, it often leads to criminal charges. Below are the most common charges stemming from massage parlor investigations and raids in Texas — along with the potential penalties individuals may face under the law:

Prostitution – Texas Penal Code § 43.02

A person commits prostitution if they knowingly offer or agree to engage in sexual conduct for a fee. Both service providers and clients can be charged.

• First offense: Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a maximum $2,000 fine
• Second offense: Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a maximum $4,000 fine
• Third or subsequent offense: State jail felony, punishable by 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility and a maximum $10,000 fine

Solicitation of Prostitution – Texas Penal Code § 43.021

A person commits solicitation of prostitution if he or she knowingly offers or agrees to pay a fee to another for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct with that person or another.

• First offense: State jail felony, punishable 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility and up to a $10,000 fine
• If the person solicited is under 18:  Second-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

Human Trafficking – Texas Penal Code § 20A.02

A person commits human trafficking if they knowingly traffic another person and use force, fraud, or coercion to cause them to engage in labor, services, or commercial sex acts. It is also a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in a trafficking venture.

In massage parlor investigations, this charge often arises when individuals — particularly undocumented immigrants — are found to be forced or coerced into sex work or labor under exploitative conditions.

• Penalty: Second-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine
• If the victim is under 18 or suffers serious bodily injury: First-degree felony, punishable by  5 to 99 years or life in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine

Promotion of Prostitution – Texas Penal Code § 43.03

A person commits an offense if he or she receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement to participate in the proceeds of prostitution; or solicits another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation.

• Penalty: Third-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine
• With a prior conviction: Second-degree felony, punishable b y 2 to 20 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine
• If the conduct involves a minor (under 18): First-degree felony, punishable by 5 to 99 years or life in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine, regardless of whether the accused knew the minor’s age.

Aggravated Promotion of Prostitution – Texas Penal Code § 43.04

A person commits aggravated promotion of prostitution if they knowingly own, invest in, finance, control, supervise, or manage a prostitution operation that involves two or more prostitutes. This charge is typically reserved for individuals operating or profiting from organized prostitution rings or massage parlors functioning as illicit enterprises.

• Penalty: First-degree felony, punishable by 5 to 99 years or life in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine

Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity – Texas Penal Code § 71.02

A person commits engaging in organized crime if they, with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a criminal combination or street gang, commit or conspire to commit certain specified crimes — such as prostitution, human trafficking, aggravated promotion of prostitution, or compelling prostitution.

This statute is often used to target criminal enterprises involving multiple actors, such as organized prostitution rings, trafficking networks, or coordinated illegal massage parlors. Individuals who finance, coordinate, or recruit others—even if they do not directly engage in the underlying crime—may be prosecuted under this law.

• Penalty: The punishment is enhanced by one degree above the underlying offense
• For example, if the base charge is a second-degree felony, the organized crime enhancement raises it to a first-degree felony.

Federal Charges After a Massage Parlor Bust

Massage parlor raids can escalate into federal cases, especially if:

• The activity crosses state lines
• Undocumented individuals are involved
• There is evidence of wire fraud, money laundering, or social media-based trafficking

Federal convictions can carry mandatory minimum sentences and longer prison terms than state offenses. Agencies such as ICE, the FBI, and Homeland Security may become involved.

What to Expect During a Massage Parlor Raid

Massage parlor raids can be swift, intense, and legally complex. Law enforcement typically arrives with a search warrant, detains individuals on-site, and begins collecting evidence. Officers may question employees and clients, while state regulators like the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) assess licensing violations that can result in immediate business closures—even before any criminal charges are filed.

• Search Warrants: Officers will enter with judicial authorization and may detain anyone on-site.
• Interviews: Law enforcement may question employees and patrons. You have the right to remain silent and to request an attorney.
• Evidence Collection: Phones, cash, business records, surveillance systems, and IDs may be seized.
• TDLR Involvement: Inspectors can revoke licenses or issue an immediate closure, often before criminal charges are filed.
• Arrests: Police may arrest individuals suspected of engaging in or facilitating illegal activity, such as prostitution or human trafficking. Those taken into custody may face serious misdemeanor or felony charges, depending on the allegations and evidence gathered during the raid.

If you have been arrested or are under investigation following a massage parlor raid, it’s critical to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. Early legal intervention can help protect your rights, limit exposure to criminal charges, and begin building a strong defense before formal accusations are filed.

How Investigators Build Their Case

Authorities typically spend months compiling evidence before a raid, including:

• Undercover operations and stings to document illegal offers of sexual services
• Surveillance of traffic, client interactions, and staff behavior
• Audits of licenses, financials, and hiring records to detect money laundering or unlicensed operations

This multi-agency approach makes it easier to stack multiple charges –  and harder to fight without experienced legal counsel.

Common Misconceptions About Massage Parlor Offenses

“Everyone Consented.”
Consent does not negate trafficking, especially when the person is underage or coerced.

“It’s Just a Misdemeanor.”
Solicitation is now a felony, and promotion or trafficking can result in decades in prison.

“Only the Owners Get Charged.”
Not true. Employees, landlords, drivers, and even clients may face criminal charges or be listed as co-conspirators.

Immigration Risks for Non-Citizens

Massage parlor raids often involve individuals without legal status. Convictions for prostitution or trafficking may lead to:

• Detention by ICE
• Deportation proceedings
• Loss of green card or asylum eligibility
• Bars to reentry into the U.S.

Even without a conviction, ICE holds can delay release on bond or result in transfer to immigration detention.

Can the State Shut Down a Business Without a Conviction?

Yes. As of September 1, 2023, under House Bill 3579, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) can issue Emergency Orders of Closure against massage establishments suspected of human trafficking or related sexual offenses — even without criminal charges or a conviction.

The law allows TDLR’s executive director to halt operations if:

• Law enforcement notifies TDLR that an establishment is under investigation for human trafficking or related sexual offenses.
• TDLR has reasonable cause to believe such offenses are being committed at the business.

These closures can:

• Be enforced immediately
• Remain in place while investigations continue
• Result in permanent loss of licensure
• There is no requirement for criminal charges to be filed first

These emergency closure orders are typically effective for six months, giving authorities time to investigate further and provide support to potential victims. After this period, TDLR can either allow the business to reopen or revoke its license, depending on the outcome of the investigation.

The law does not broadly apply to every form of illegality, but focuses on combating human trafficking and sexual offenses within massage establishments. The law took effect on September 1, 2023, and has been actively used across Texas since then.

Questioned or Arrested in a Massage Parlor Raid?

Massage parlor raids can lead to life-altering consequences: felony records, sex offender registration, loss of business, immigration consequences, and permanent public stigma. If your name is tied to one of these operations, your next move is critical.

The criminal defense attorneys at Varghese Summersett have handled some of the most complex sex crimes and trafficking charges in North Texas. We act fast to protect your freedom, rights, and reputation. Call us today at 817-203-2220 or contact us online.