Earlier this month, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction in GSA Network v. Morath, No. 4:25-CV-04090, 2026 WL 483018 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026) blocking enforcement of the key provisions of Texas Senate Bill 12 (SB 12) by Houston ISD, Katy ISD, and Plano ISD.
Need legal advice?
Having trouble finding answers to your legal questions? Amy can help!
The Court granted the preliminary injunction based on the following reasons:
- Non-Opposition by School Districts: The three school districts did not oppose the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Their responses were brief, declined to defend the constitutionality of SB 12, and did not challenge the factual declarations submitted by the plaintiffs. Under federal procedural rules and local court rules, failure to respond is treated as no opposition, and courts generally do not raise arguments on behalf of parties who do not present them.
- Party Presentation Principle: The Court emphasized the principle that federal courts rely on the parties to frame the issues. Since the school districts did not present any arguments or evidence in defense of SB 12, the court found it inappropriate to construct defenses on their behalf. This principle is especially important in constitutional litigation, where judicial restraint requires courts to decide only the issues presented by the parties.
- Standing and Traceability: The Court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the school districts’ implementation of SB 12, as the districts had adopted or were enforcing policies pursuant to the law. The court also found that an injunction against the districts would redress the plaintiffs’ injuries, as the districts were the entities responsible for enforcement of the challenged provisions.
- Scope of Relief: The Court limited the injunction to the three defendant school districts, rather than issuing statewide relief, because the Commissioner of Education (the only defendant with potential statewide authority) was dismissed for lack of standing. The Court reasoned that SB 12’s enforcement is decentralized and rests with individual school districts, so the injunction could only reach the policies and actions of the named districts.
- Procedural Consequences for Non-Participation: The Court noted that the school districts’ refusal to take a position on the merits or defend their actions meant they could not resist the preliminary injunction at this stage. The Court ordered the districts to file a statement within fourteen days indicating whether they intend to defend SB 12, seek representation from the Texas Attorney General, or pursue another course.
In summary, the preliminary injunction was granted because the school districts did not oppose it, the plaintiffs had standing, and the Court was bound by procedural rules and principles of judicial restraint to grant the unopposed relief, but only as to the named districts and not statewide.
Do you have legal questions?
Amy can help! Schedule your free initial consultation with The Gustafson Firm now!