HB 4501
bill telling judges to ignore what lawmakers say they meant
Died in committee
Verdict: No flags
Initial review · graded Oct 20, 2026 · Headline, summary and grade are analysis of the bill text, not a finding about any person · How we grade
Caption
relating to statutory construction.
Caption from analyzed text · version I.
Summary
Plain text wins. No agency deference. Laws get harder to strike down whole.
The bill rewrites the state's rules for how courts read Texas laws, telling judges to enforce the plain text, ignore what lawmakers say they meant, skip committee reports and floor statements, and owe no automatic deference to state agencies' readings. It touches every Texas court and every party in a case that turns on what a statute means, and it also adds a strong severability rule that keeps the valid parts of a law alive when a court strikes down other parts. On the ground, judges lose tools like legislative history and agency deference, laws become harder to strike down in full, and missed notice steps in suits against government bodies count as jurisdictional defects, starting September 1, 2025.
Labels
Labels: NEVER GOT A HEARING. Filed Mar 12, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee. No public hearing. The bill died.
Receipt
The receipt
89R-HB4501 · 2025-03-12
SOLD BY
ITEM
relating to statutory construction.
WHAT IT DOES
Plain text wins. No agency deference. Laws get harder to strike down whole.
The bill rewrites the state's rules for how courts read Texas laws, telling judges to enforce the plain text, ignore what lawmakers say they meant, skip committee reports and floor statements, and owe no automatic deference to state agencies' readings. It touches every Texas court and every party in a case that turns on what a statute means, and it also adds a strong severability rule that keeps the valid parts of a law alive when a court strikes down other parts. On the ground, judges lose tools like legislative history and agency deference, laws become harder to strike down in full, and missed notice steps in suits against government bodies count as jurisdictional defects, starting September 1, 2025.
CHARGES
[ ] NONE FOUND
TOTAL
No fiscal note in the loaded record.
HISTORY
- Filed
- Read first time
- Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence
FILED UNDER
THE TEXT
“Statutory prerequisites to a suit, including the provision of notice, are jurisdictional requirements in all suits against a governmental entity.”
Bill text, introduced version (I)
The bill makes procedural steps like notice into jurisdictional bars in every suit against a government body, which strengthens the government's shield against lawsuits.
THANK YOU FOR CHECKING THE RECEIPT
CAMPAIGN PAID FOR BY
CAMPAIGN PAID FOR BY
Donors
Not tied to this bill.
Sources
The author's campaign account only. Own money and internal transfers are separate on the member page.
Derived itemized flow · Oct 28, 2024 to Oct 24, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC$432,937.00
Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC
$432,937.00
- Cash
- $212,000.00
- Paid by others
- $220,937.00
- Total
- $432,937.00
Also funds 124 other sitting lawmakers.
Derived recipient stock · Jul 10, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
TEC account match.
TeamSources
Derived itemized flow · Jun 23, 2025 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.
Report IDs: 101006866, 101027356, 101057804, 101070463, 101071373.
Texas Conservative Majority PAC$331,750.00
Texas Conservative Majority PAC
$331,750.00
- Cash
- $200,000.00
- Paid by others
- $131,750.00
- Total
- $331,750.00
Also funds 42 other sitting lawmakers.
Derived recipient stock · Jan 23, 2026 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
TEC account match.
TeamSources
Derived itemized flow · Jul 24, 2026 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.
Report IDs: 101070463, 101071373.
Republican Party of Texas$254,625.06
Republican Party of Texas
$254,625.06
- Cash
- $0.00
- Paid by others
- $254,625.06
- Total
- $254,625.06
Also funds 12 other sitting lawmakers.
Derived recipient stock · Oct 31, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
TEC account match.
TeamSources
Derived itemized flow · Sep 23, 2026 to Oct 19, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.
Report IDs: 101070463, 101071373.
Missing data does not establish zero giving. Display amounts are rounded.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC
$432,937.00
- Cash
- $212,000.00
- Paid by others
- $220,937.00
- Total
- $432,937.00
Also funds 124 other sitting lawmakers.
Derived recipient stock · Jul 10, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
TEC account match.
TeamSources
Derived itemized flow · Jun 23, 2025 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.
Report IDs: 101006866, 101027356, 101057804, 101070463, 101071373.
Texas Conservative Majority PAC
$331,750.00
- Cash
- $200,000.00
- Paid by others
- $131,750.00
- Total
- $331,750.00
Also funds 42 other sitting lawmakers.
Derived recipient stock · Jan 23, 2026 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
TEC account match.
TeamSources
Derived itemized flow · Jul 24, 2026 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.
Report IDs: 101070463, 101071373.
Republican Party of Texas
$254,625.06
- Cash
- $0.00
- Paid by others
- $254,625.06
- Total
- $254,625.06
Also funds 12 other sitting lawmakers.
Derived recipient stock · Oct 31, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
TEC account match.
TeamSources
Derived itemized flow · Sep 23, 2026 to Oct 19, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.
Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.
Report IDs: 101070463, 101071373.
Votes
No floor vote loaded for this bill.
Fiscal
No fiscal note in the loaded record.
How this was graded
Analysis of text version I by claude-opus-5-5, Oct 20, 2026, against the published rubric.
Sources
Texas House · Filed Mar 12, 2025
04/03/2025 H Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence: Apr 3 2025 12:38PM
Texas Legislature Online · Introduced
Data snapshot Oct 26, 2026 at 4:19 AM CDT. Grades, charges, quotes and corrections follow the published record.
House committee · Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence · Final status: Died in committee
Companion
SB 1796 by Middleton (similar)
HB 113 by Vasut (duplicate)
Subjects
Courts--General
Legislature
Text
The text as introduced · 2,019 words
89R13330 MAW-F By: Schofield H.B. No. 4501 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to statutory construction. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Sections 311.016(2) and (3), Government Code, are amended to read as follows: (2) "Shall" imposes a duty. The use of "shall" does not indicate that an action is discretionary. (3) "Must" imposes a requirement and either creates a duty or creates or recognizes a condition precedent. SECTION 2. Subchapter C, Chapter 311, Government Code, is amended by adding Sections 311.0211, 311.0212, and 311.0213 to read as follows: Sec. 311.0211. INTENTIONALISM PROHIBITED. When interpreting a statute, a court: (1) may not inquire into what members of the legislature intended to accomplish by enacting the statute; and (2) shall enforce the statutory text as written and in accordance with the meaning that the words of the statute would have to an ordinary speaker of the English language. Sec. 311.0212. USE OF LEGISLATURE HISTORY PROHIBITED. When interpreting a statute, a court may not consider, consult, cite, rely on, or give any weight to: (1) any statement from an individual legislator, including a statement by the author or sponsor of the bill that enacted the statute or a statement made during a committee hearing or debate of the bill on the floor of a house of the legislature; (2) a committee report; or (3) a statement of a presiding officer or the governor made on the signing of the bill. Sec. 311.0213. DEFERENCE TO AGENCY CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED. Notwithstanding any other law, a court is not required to give deference to any construction of a statute by a state agency responsible for administering, implementing, or enforcing the statute. This section does not prohibit a court from considering a state agency's construction of a statute if that construction is reasonable and does not conflict with the plain language of the statute. SECTION 3. Section 311.025(c), Government Code, is amended to read as follows: (c) In determining whether amendments are irreconcilable, text that is reenacted because of the requirement of Article III, Section 36, of the Texas Constitution is not considered to be irreconcilable with additions or omissions in the same text made by another amendment. Unless clearly indicated to the contrary, an amendment that reenacts text in compliance with that constitutional requirement does not mean [ indicate legislative intent ] that the reenacted text prevails [ prevail ] over changes in the same text made by another amendment, regardless of the relative dates of enactment. SECTION 4. Section 311.026(b), Government Code, is amended to read as follows: (b) If the conflict between the general provision and the special or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and clearly and unambiguously supersedes the special or local provision [ the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail ]. SECTION 5. Section 311.028, Government Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 311.028. UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION OF UNIFORM ACTS. A uniform act included in a code shall be construed , when possible, [ to effect its general purpose ] to make uniform the law of those states that enact it. SECTION 6. Subchapter C, Chapter 311, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 311.0311 to read as follows: Sec. 311.0311. SEVERABILITY AND SAVING CONSTRUCTIONS. (a) Unless a statute contains a provision expressly providing for nonseverability, every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word of the statute, including every discrete application of the provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group of persons, or circumstance, is severable. (b) If any application of any statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group of persons, or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional, regardless of the reason, all remaining applications of that statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any other person, group of persons, or circumstance shall be severed and preserved and remain in effect. (c) It is the intent of the legislature that every valid, non-preempted, and constitutional application of its statutory enactments be allowed to stand alone and remain enforceable. (d) A court may not decline to enforce the severability requirements of this section on the grounds that the severance would rewrite the statute or involve the court in legislative or lawmaking activity. A court that declines to enforce, or that enjoins a state official from enforcing, wholly or partly, a statute is not considered to be rewriting a statute or engaging in legislative or lawmaking activity because the statute continues to contain the same words as before the court's decision. A judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality: (1) is only an edict prohibiting enforcement of the disputed statute against the parties to that lawsuit and may subsequently be vacated by a higher court based on a different understanding of the law; (2) is not a formal amendment of the language in a statute; and (3) does not rewrite the statute any more than a decision by the executive not to enforce a duly enacted statute in a limited and defined set of circumstances. (e) If a court, in violation of this section, declares or finds any statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to be facially or totally invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional, when there are discrete applications of that statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word that could be enforced against a person, group of persons, or circumstance without violating federal law or the federal or state constitutions, then that statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word shall be interpreted, as a matter of state law, as if the legislature had explicitly limited its application to the person, group of persons, or circumstance for which its application will not violate federal law or the federal or state constitutions, and every court shall adopt and apply this saving construction until the court ruling declaring the statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word facially or totally invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional is vacated or overturned. SECTION 7. Section 311.034, Government Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 311.034. WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ; JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS . In order to preserve the legislature's interest in managing state fiscal matters through the appropriations process, a statute shall not be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity unless the waiver is effected by clear and unambiguous language. In a statute, the use of "person," as defined by Section 311.005 to include governmental entities, does not [ indicate legislative intent to ] waive sovereign immunity unless the context of the statute indicates no other reasonable construction. Statutory prerequisites to a suit, including the provision of notice, are jurisdictional requirements in all suits against a governmental entity. SECTION 8. Subchapter C, Chapter 311, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 311.037 to read as follows: Sec. 311.037. GRAMMATICAL OR SCRIVENER'S ERROR. A grammatical or scrivener's error does not vitiate a law. A court construing a statute that contains a grammatical or scrivener's error that would be apparent to an ordinary reader of the English language may interpret the statute consistent with the understanding of the statute by an ordinary reader of the English language. SECTION 9. Subchapter A, Chapter 312, Government Code, is amended by adding Sections 312.0051, 312.0052, 312.0053, 312.0081, and 312.0082 to read as follows: Sec. 312.0051. INTENTIONALISM PROHIBITED. When interpreting a statute, a court: (1) may not inquire into what members of the legislature intended to accomplish by enacting the statute; and (2) shall enforce the statutory text as written and in accordance with the meaning that the words of the statute would have to an ordinary speaker of the English language. Sec. 312.0052. USE OF LEGISLATURE HISTORY PROHIBITED. When interpreting a statute, a court may not consider, consult, cite, rely on, or give any weight to: (1) any statement from an individual legislator, including a statement by the author or sponsor of the bill that enacted the statute or a statement made during a committee hearing or debate of the bill on the floor of a house of the legislature; (2) a committee report; or (3) a statement of a presiding officer or the governor made on the signing of the bill. Sec. 312.0053. DEFERENCE TO AGENCY CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED. Notwithstanding any other law, a court is not required to give deference to any construction of a statute by a state agency responsible for administering, implementing, or enforcing the statute. This section does not prohibit a court from considering a state agency's construction of a statute if that construction is reasonable and does not conflict with the plain language of the statute. Sec. 312.0081. GRAMMATICAL OR SCRIVENER'S ERROR. A grammatical or scrivener's error does not vitiate a law. A court construing a statute that contains a grammatical or scrivener's error that would be apparent to an ordinary reader of the English language may interpret the statute consistent with the understanding of the statute by an ordinary reader of the English language. Sec. 312.0082. SEVERABILITY AND SAVING CONSTRUCTIONS. (a) Unless a statute contains a provision expressly providing for nonseverability, every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word of the statute, including every discrete application of the provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group of persons, or circumstance, is severable. (b) If any application of any statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group of persons, or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional, regardless of the reason, all remaining applications of that statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any other person, group of persons, or circumstance shall be severed and preserved and remain in effect. (c) It is the intent of the legislature that every valid, non-preempted, and constitutional application of its statutory enactments be allowed to stand alone and remain enforceable. (d) A court may not decline to enforce the severability requirements of this section on the grounds that the severance would rewrite the statute or involve the court in legislative or lawmaking activity. A court that declines to enforce, or that enjoins a state official from enforcing, wholly or partly, a statute is not considered to be rewriting a statute or engaging in legislative or lawmaking activity because the statute continues to contain the same words as before the court's decision. A judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality: (1) is only an edict prohibiting enforcement of the disputed statute against the parties to that lawsuit and may subsequently be vacated by a higher court based on a different understanding of the law; (2) is not a formal amendment of the language in a statute; and (3) does not rewrite the statute any more than a decision by the executive not to enforce a duly enacted statute in a limited and defined set of circumstances. (e) If a court, in violation of this section, declares or finds any statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to be facially or totally invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional, when there are discrete applications of that statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word that could be enforced against a person, group of persons, or circumstance without violating federal law or the federal or state constitutions, then that statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word shall be interpreted, as a matter of state law, as if the legislature had explicitly limited its application to the person, group of persons, or circumstance for which its application will not violate federal law or the federal or state constitutions, and every court shall adopt and apply this saving construction until the court ruling declaring the statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word facially or totally invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional is vacated or overturned. SECTION 10. Sections 311.021, 311.023, 311.032, 312.005, 312.006, 312.012, and 312.013, Government Code, are repealed. SECTION 11. This Act takes effect September 1, 2025.