Federal Judge Halts SB 12 in Three Districts, Opening Door to Statewide Challenge

A federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of key aspects of SB 12 in Houston ISD, Katy ISD, and Plano ISD until the case is fully resolved, and issued an opinion explaining its reasoning. Texas AFT signed onto this lawsuit in Sept. 2025 joining GSA Network and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT).

Under SB 12, school districts would be forced to ban gay-straight alliance (GSA) clubs, prevent educators from using students' chosen names and pronouns, and prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts from public and charter K-12 schools.

Our president, Zeph Capo, explained why our members are determined to challenge this legislation that targets students of color and LGBTQ students: "When educators step in the classroom, we make a promise to support our students and their families. SB 12 asks us to set aside both that promise and the state's own educator code of ethics to be foot soldiers for Texas's anti-inclusion crusade."

A narrow ruling with statewide implications

The preliminary injunction currently applies only to Houston ISD, Katy ISD, and Plano ISDs. Plaintiffs had sought a statewide block, but the court declined to extend that relief broadly after finding that Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath had not yet taken steps to enforce the law and dismissed him as a defendant for the time being. Because enforcement authority under SB 12 rests with individual school districts rather than the Commissioner, the court's reach was limited to the three districts named in the lawsuit.

The injunction came about through an unusual procedural circumstance that U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge addressed in his opinion. Despite having already implemented SB 12 policies, Houston, Katy, and Plano ISDs each declined to defend the law in court.

Katy ISD stated it "takes no position" on the injunction, and Plano ISD likewise took "no position on the constitutionality or propriety of SB 12." Eskridge did not let that pass quietly. Drawing on a baseball metaphor (spring training is going on, after all), he wrote that while a federal court's role is to call "balls and strikes," it is equally the umpire's duty to "call an out when the batter won't even step into the box," and that a federal court does not take the place of defendants who refuse to defend their own actions.

The injunction was granted as unopposed by the defendants and described the districts' responses as "terse and avoidant" and found they had sought the "the path of least resistance," implementing a law they would not defend on the merits in a federal court. That choice, the judge wrote, came with consequences.

The injunction blocks several key provisions of SB 12, including:

• The Club Provision, which prohibits public school clubs "based on sexual orientation or gender identity;

• The DEI Provision, which prohibits assignment and pursuit of "diversity, equity, and inclusion duties" in public schools;

• The Social Transition Provision, which requires school districts to adopt policies prohibiting employees from "assisting" students with "social transitioning;"

• The LGBT Curriculum Provision, which prohibits public school employees or third parties from providing "instruction, guidance, activities, or programming regarding sexual orientation or gender identity."

Although the injunction currently covers only the three named districts, Eskridge's opinion carried a direct warning for every school district in Texas.Invoking the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the judge pointed to Galveston ISD's decision to refuse to post the Ten Commandments under SB 10, another law from the same legislative session, as a real-world example of what districts must do when state law conflicts with federal law.

"The Supremacy Clause dictates a clear answer," Eskridge wrote: "follow federal law." For Texas AFT members in districts not yet covered by the injunction, that language is significant. It suggests that a district choosing to align with federal law over a conflicting state directive would be on firm constitutional footing, even at the risk of pushback from the state.

For students in the three covered districts, the injunction restores freedoms that should never have been taken away. Texas AFT's position is straightforward: SB 12 should not have been signed into law, and the fight does not end with three districts. The case now moves forward through the federal courts, and the goal remains a statewide injunction that protects every Texas student and educator from a law that was constitutionally flawed from the start.