(The Center Square) – The Fifteenth Court of Appeals this week unanimously granted a motion filed by the state to halt San Antonio city officials from allocating taxpayer money to fund out-of-state travel for abortion.
The ruling is a significant one by a new court established by the legislature in 2023. Its first term began last September.
Chief Justice Scott Brister and Justices Scott Field and April Farris ruled to prohibit the city “from distributing payments from the $100,000 in funding that was newly allocated to the Reproductive Justice Fund during the pendency of this appeal or until further order of this Court.”
They ruled on a case brought by Attorney General Ken Paxton to halt the city’s attempt at skirting state law prohibiting funding for abortion-related services. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade returning the issue of abortion to the states in June 2022, Texas’ abortion bans soon after went into effect. In August 2022, the San Antonio City Council began taking several actions, including passing a resolution and later receiving more than $20 million from publicly owned CPS Energy “to fund abortion travel,” The Center Square reported.
In 2023, the city council created the Reproductive Justice Fund and in 2024 allocated $500,000 of taxpayer money to nongovernmental organizations to provide a range of services. In this round of funding, “none of the recipient organizations proposed to spend the money on ‘abortion transportation or navigation,’” the justices note in their ruling.
“This case concerns the events that happened next. The day after the 2024 funding agreements were finalized, City Council members sent a memo to the Community Health Committee (CHC) expressing interest in providing ‘downstream services that were not met through the already awarded $500,000.’” They next requested another $100,000 for “downstream services,” which could include funding out of state travel for abortions, which Paxton refers to as “abortion tourism,” The Center Square reported.
The justices said the “facts of the case are indisputable,” pointing to a form sent by city officials to NGOs asking if they’d “‘have interest in pursuing a new funding opportunity specific to downstream services,’ highlighting the option of out-of-state travel for abortions. The form also specifically asked the organizations whether they ‘would have interest in pursuing an additional funding opportunity specific to out of State travel’ for abortions.”
Nine organizations expressed interest; three “indicated interest in an additional funding opportunity limited to out-of-state travel for abortion-related care;” another “conditioned its interest in providing out-of-state abortion travel ‘if the City were to provide legal protection for the organization,’” the justices note.
On April 3, 2025, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District asked the city council to “authorize an expedited procurement” to support downstream services, including out-of-state travel, and presented four groups interested in participating.
The same day, the city council passed an ordinance creating an expedited procurement process and allocated $100,000 for it. “The ordinance specifically highlights the option for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions,” the justices note. Applications were due in May.
Paxton argues the RJF violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause and “there is also absolutely zero authority under state law for cities to pay to enable people to avoid Texas’s pro-life statutes.” The city argues the funds haven’t been distributed yet, so they haven’t violated any law.
After a lower court ruled in favor of the city, Paxton appealed to the appellate court, which disagreed with the city’s argument.
“Jurisdiction here is not like an avocado, good only for a few days between unripeness on one end and spoiling on the other, once funds are disbursed to contract recipients,” the justices said. “Although the City has not yet disbursed funds, the threat of harm is more than conjectural, hypothetical, or remote,” citing Article III, section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution.
The justices also noted that “the record reflects that the City’s ordinance permits organizations to apply for public funds that will benefit private parties. In fact, while this appeal has been pending, the parties represent that the organizations have made their applications and the City is considering to whom to grant funds.”
The case continues in the lower court.
The ruling is considered a major win for Gov. Greg Abbott, who has signed some of the strongest pro-life legislation in the country, advocated for the creation of the court, and appointed all of the court’s three justices. However, he has yet to sign a bill into law that would strengthen state law banning the city policy at issue in the case.
The Texas legislature this year passed a bill to ban taxpayer money from being used to fund out of state travel to have an abortion, The Center Square reported. Abbott has yet to sign it into law.
