An appeal seeking to overturn a judge鈥檚 temporary ban on as child abuse is 鈥渇rivolous鈥� and should be rejected, a veteran lawyer and former professor at Baylor University has told a Texas appeals court.
The assertion Wednesday by retired professor was filed with the Texas Third Court of Appeals after a ruling last week that a directive by Gov. Greg Abbott to investigate some medical care for transgender youths exceeded his legal authority.
Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that certain 鈥渟ex-change鈥� procedures and the prescribing of puberty-blockers to certain children is 鈥渃hild abuse鈥� under state law and said the Texas Department of Family Protective Services should 鈥渁ct accordingly.鈥�
Paxton鈥檚 opinion was followed by a directive from Abbott to the Texas DFPS 鈥渢o conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of any reported instances of these abusive procedures in the State of Texas鈥�.
The agency subsequently began investigating several families but on Friday District Judge Amy Clark Meachum in Travis County temporarily blocked a directive and said the directive exceeded Abbott's authority under the Texas Constitution and the type of care it targeted never triggered an investigation before.
Paxton immediately appealed the ruling Friday and that: 鈥淭hankfully, Democrat judge鈥檚 order permitting child abuse is frozen. Much-needed investigations proceed as they should,鈥� he said.
But it鈥檚 unclear if the investigations into the alleged child abuse are ongoing after Judge Meachum鈥檚 order.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 exactly know what is happening. It鈥檚 complicated and we can鈥檛 say one way or another what kind of effect that Paxton鈥檚 appeal really has,鈥� said Brian Klosterboer, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents the plaintiffs in the case. 鈥淏ut I will say we are working as quickly as we can to affirm the statewide relief.鈥�
Paxton鈥檚 office did not respond to a request for comment about how the investigations are allowed to continue pending appeal. A spokesperson for the DFPS would only say the agency will 鈥渃ontinue to follow the law鈥� but would not elaborate on whether that means the directive or the injunction.
Beal argued in an amicus brief the directive was illegally implemented because proper procedures were not followed. He said that according to state law, the directive falls under the definition of a 鈥渞ule, "which must undergo notice-and-comment procedures.
鈥淭here is simply nothing else that needs to be considered and this appeal by Attorney General Paxton is utterly frivolous and a total waste of time for this Court and all parties and lawyers acting on their behalf,鈥� he wrote.
Beal, who is considered an expert in administrative law and taught at Baylor University for nearly 40 years, said he wasn鈥檛 compensated for the brief and filed it on his own accord. But, he added, he doesn鈥檛 think the state should interfere in such personal decisions.
鈥淚 am totally on the side that our governor and our attorney general, for whatever reason they're doing this, should stop,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f they're going to do it, they've got to do it [based] on facts. They've got to prove that this actually is bad, that it's injury, that it's damaging people. [But] I just think this is between a parent, a child, and doctors.鈥�
Paxton鈥檚 office did not respond to a request for comment about Beal鈥檚 amicus brief.
Beal also told The Texas Newsroom that absent action by the Texas Legislature, the rulemaking procedure is what is followed in a process that usually takes several months.
鈥淚t usually takes six or nine months to do that. And then as soon as it's adopted, then it can be challenged in a court of law that,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd that'll delay it another year or so. And [Paxton and Abbott] want it on the books right now.鈥�
四虎影院 is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider鈥�making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
Got a tip? Email Juli谩n Aguilar at鈥�jaguilar@kera.org.You can follow Juli谩n on Twitter鈥�@nachoaguilar.
