ACCEPTED 15-25-00140-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/19/2025 5:52 PM No. 15-25-00140-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK RECEIVED IN IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTIN,OF 15th COURT APPEALS TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk IN RE POWERED BY PEOPLE AND ROBERT FRANCIS O’ROURKE, Relators.
Original Proceeding from the 348th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Hon. Megan Fahey, Presiding Judge Cause No. 348-367652-25
Brief for Amici Curiae Faith Commons, Fellowship Southwest, and Texas Freedom Network in Support of Relators
Peter Steffensen Kathryn “Kassi” Yukevich State Bar No. 24106464 State Bar No. 24133390 Molly Ryan* TILLOTSON JOHNSON & PATTON State Bar No. 24148032 1201 Main St., Suite 1300 Amanda Sparks* Dallas, Texas 75202 State Bar No. 24148033 Telephone: (214) 382-3046 SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW Facsimile: (214) 501-0731 FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC kyukevich@tillotsonlaw.com P.O. Box 750116 Dallas, TX 75275-0116 Thomas S. Leatherbury Telephone: (214) 768-4077 State Bar No. 12095275 psteffensen@smu.edu THOMAS S. LEATHERBURY LAW, PLLC Cumberland Hill School Building 1901 North Akard Street Counsel for Amici Curiae Dallas, TX 75201-2305 (214) 213-5004 tom@tsleatherburylaw.com
* Associate Member of the State Bar, authorized under Rule VI.A(4) of the Rules Governing the Supervised Practice of Law by Qualified Law Students. TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..............................................................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................3
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................6
I. The DTPA Protects Consumers from Fraud in the Purchase of Goods or Services and Does Not Regulate Donations or Gifts. .......................6
II. Real Party’s Claim Impermissibly Expands the Ability of Both the Attorney General and Consumers to Bring Suit Against Amici. ..........8
III. The First Amendment and the Texas Constitution Protect Freedom of Speech and Prohibit Retaliation for Disfavored Speech. ....................13
IV. Real Party’s Continued Pursuit of Retaliatory DTPA Claims Against Relators Will Chill Protected Speech and Charitable Activities of Amici. ...................................................................................................15
V. Direct Harm Will Befall Amici and the Communities They Serve If Mandamus Is Not Granted. .................................................................17
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................20
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................21
ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s) Cases Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963) .......................................................................................................... 13 Bryan v. City of Madison, Miss., 213 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................... 9 Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992) ............................................................................................... 14 Flenniken v. Longview Bank and Tr. Co., 661 S.W.2d 705, 707 (Tex. 1983) .................................................................................... 6 Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) ........................................................................................................ 13 In re Office of Attorney Gen., No. 15-24-00091-CV, 2025 WL 2204075 (Tex. App. [15th Dist.] Aug. 4, 2025) ............................................................................................................................. 16 In re M.N., 262 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. 2008) ............................................................................................ 7 Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 138 F.4th 563 (D.C. Cir. 2025)...................................................................................... 14 Nat’l. Religious Broadcasters et al. v. Long, Case No. 6:24-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 35 (July 7, 2025) ............................ 12 Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024) ........................................................................................................ 13 Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc., No. 24-0573, 2025 WL 1536224 (Tex. May 30, 2025) ............................................... 16 PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Hous. Ctrs. Partners Ltd. P'ship, 146 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2004) ........................................................................................ 6
iii Riverside Nat'l Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tex. 1980) .................................................................................... 6 Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) ........................................................................................................ 13 Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959) ........................................................................................................ 13 United States v. Menendez, 291 F. Supp. 3d 606 (D.N.J. 2018) ............................................................................... 10 Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620 (1980) ........................................................................................................ 13 Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383 (1988) ........................................................................................................ 13 Statutes TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.45 ......................................................................................... 7 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.47 ......................................................................................... 6 Other Authorities Commerce, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024)............................................................ 10 Consumer, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) .............................................................. 8 Trade, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) .................................................................... 9
iv INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici Curiae are religious and religiously affiliated organizations that work to
provide charitable services and resources to underserved communities. These charitable
services are funded in large part through individual donations that Amici aggregate and
direct towards the services and communities where they see the most need. Much of
Amici’s charitable work is threatened by the Attorney General’s overreading of the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). The Attorney General’s
misapplication of the DTPA leaves Amici vulnerable to the same prosecutorial
overreach experienced by Relators in this matter and threatens to harm not just Amici,
but the religious communities they work for and alongside each day in service of their
faith.
Amici’s interest in this matter derives from, among other sources, the Hebrew
and Christian Bibles and the Quran. The practice of charity and almsgiving is a core
tenet of the Jewish and Christian faiths:
“If your brother becomes impoverished and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him.” Leviticus 25:35.
“One person gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.” Proverbs 11:24-25.
Charitable giving, or Zakât is also a pillar of Islam:
“[G]ive the Zakât-Charity, and therewith lend God a most goodly loan. For whatever good you advance for your souls, you shall find its reward with God in the Hereafter; yet it 1 shall be far better and much greater in reward.” Sûrat Al- Muzzammil 73:20.
These same faiths teach their followers to speak for those who cannot speak for
themselves:
“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9.
In short, while Amici may disagree on many things, they are united in their belief
that religious speech must be protected, especially in the context of an organization’s
ability to raise funds for charitable pursuits and care for the most disadvantaged among
us.
Amici1 are:
Faith Commons: Faith Commons is an interfaith organization that works to
bring together followers of all religions to further their common values of faith, justice,
and dignity for all people. Faith Commons works directly with underserved
communities—including immigrant communities—to provide basic necessities, like
food and shelter.
Fellowship Southwest: Fellowship Southwest is a faith-based organization that
catalyzes and amplifies the work of Christians as they practice compassion and pursue
1 No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of this brief, and no person other than the amici curiae or their counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of this brief.
2 justice. Fellowship Southwest and its supporting churches work directly to provide aid
and support to immigrant and refugee communities and to end hunger across Texas.
Texas Freedom Network: Texas Freedom Network (“TFN”) fights for the
preservation of true religious freedom and the separation of church and state. TFN
believes that the separation of church and state protects the rights of all Texans to freely
practice the faith of their choice, the way they choose to practice it, free of government
interference.
This diverse coalition of Amici are compelled by their faith to speak regarding
the chilling effect that the Attorney General’s claims will have on religious and
religiously affiliated organizations, particularly those whose charitable giving centers on
groups disfavored by whatever government is in power.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Amici are diverse groups from diverse backgrounds who do not agree on
everything. That makes it all the more telling that they share a singular perspective on
the public interest at stake in this case. Amici have an interest in and derive spiritual
benefits from helping those less fortunate within our society. Through their faith-based
work, Amici have a unique perspective and firsthand knowledge of the chilling effect
that the expansion of the Attorney General’s DTPA enforcement power will have on
religious organizations and the communities that they serve. Religious groups across
the State of Texas, including Amici, regularly make general appeals soliciting
contributions for charitable outreach. Those same religious groups then make decisions 3 about how to allocate charitable assistance to people and groups from all walks of life,
including refugee and immigrant communities, incarcerated individuals, and others that
some might see as undesirable or undeserving. Amici also work to advance their shared
values of freedom, justice, faith, and community through interfaith programs, and
frequently fundraise to support those programs.2 The Attorney General’s expansion of
DTPA enforcement will undoubtedly chill those activities.
Amici are united in their belief that helping the underprivileged is of paramount
importance for their faith. For decades, jurisprudence around the DTPA has been clear:
the DTPA is intended to protect consumers from deceptive or fraudulent activity in
the purchase or sale of goods and services. The Attorney General’s theory of DTPA
liability here, if successful, could easily be expanded to place religious organizations like
Amici squarely within the Office of the Attorney General’s enforcement powers. Such
a vast, textually unsupported transformation of the statute could give whomever
occupies the office carte blanche to embroil faith organizations across Texas in costly
litigation over whether their representations regarding funds were honest or—more
dangerously—comport with any one person’s subjective determination of what
constitutes an appropriate use of funds to promote the tenets of Judaism, Christianity,
2 See, e.g., Faith Commons, North Texas Giving Day Fundraising Page, https://www.northtexasgivingday.org/organization/faithcommons (last accessed Sept. 17, 2025).
4 Islam, or any other faith. That is tantamount to the State or the Attorney General
deciding what those religions should believe and value.
Refusing to issue a mandamus directing dismissal of the DTPA claims in this
matter would signal to Amici and other faith organizations that they are vulnerable to
prosecution if they engage in charitable giving that either the Office of the Attorney
General or a one-time donor disagrees with. Endorsing the Office of the Attorney
General’s overbroad interpretation of the DTPA will result in a substantial chilling
effect across the faith community in Texas, robbing Amici of the opportunity to live out
their faith in meaningful ways without fear of retaliation and potentially depriving
already vulnerable communities of critical charitable assistance. The failure to grant the
mandamus relief requested by Relators will undermine the spiritual and social fabric
that has grown from the charitable work and community building that Amici engage in.
Amici urge the Court to reject the Attorney General’s atextual reading of the DTPA and
safeguard the rights to free speech and religious liberty of all involved.
Amici join Relators in asking that a mandamus issue to order the dismissal of the
Attorney General’s DTPA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
5 ARGUMENT
I. The DTPA Protects Consumers from Fraud in the Purchase of Goods or Services and Does Not Regulate Donations or Gifts. The DTPA was designed to protect consumers from false or misleading practices
in the purchase and sale of goods or services by empowering consumers to bring their
own complaints. Riverside Nat’l Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tex. 1980). Indeed,
the Texas Supreme Court has recognized that “the DTPA’s primary goal [is] to protect
consumers by encouraging them to bring consumer complaints. . . .” PPG Indus., Inc. v.
JMB/Hous. Ctrs. Partners Ltd. P’ship, 146 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2004). “While the DTPA
allows the attorney general to bring consumer protection actions, one of the statute’s
primary purposes is to encourage consumers themselves to file their own complaints .
. . .” id., with the Attorney General empowered only to bring such suits on behalf of the
“consumers” the DTPA is designed to protect. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.47
(“Whenever the consumer protection division has reason to believe that any person is
engaging in, has engaged in, or is about to engage in any act or practice declared to be
unlawful by this subchapter…the division may bring an action”); 3 Flenniken v. Longview
Bank and Tr. Co., 661 S.W.2d 705, 707 (Tex. 1983). Without that limitation on the
Attorney General’s enforcement power, the DTPA would provide blanket authority for
3 Here again the DTPA articulates an important limitation: the Attorney General’s enforcement power under the DTPA is entirely within the Consumer Protection Division, which is charged with protecting consumers, as opposed to the General Litigation Division or the Office of Special Litigation.
6 the Office of the Attorney General to prosecute almost any conduct that it deems
“deceptive” or “fraudulent”.
Importantly, the DTPA defines a “consumer” as “an individual … who seeks or
acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.45(4)
(emphasis added). As Relators have pointed out, the DTPA’s definition of consumer
does not include a “donor or voter,” nor does any reasonable reading of the statute
support such a strained interpretation. As the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly
made clear, courts must “presume that the Legislature chooses a statute’s language with
care, including each word chosen for a purpose, while purposefully omitting words not
chosen.” In re M.N., 262 S.W.3d 799, 802 (Tex. 2008).
Meanwhile, “goods” means only “tangible chattels or real property,” and
“services” means only “work, labor, or service purchased or leased for use, including services
furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §
17.45(2)-(3) (emphasis added). Soliciting political donations does not fit within either
of those definitions. And each of the provisions of the DTPA that the Attorney General
relies on expressly cabins the DTPA to conduct that involves the purchase or lease of
“goods” or “services.” See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.45(6) (using the definition of
“goods and services” in the DTPA to define “trade” and “commerce”); 17.46(b)(2)
(incorporating the definitions of “goods” and “services” to limit deceptive conduct),
(b)(5) (same), (b)(7) (same), (b)(24) (same).
7 For these reasons, the DTPA does not apply to Relators’ solicitation and use
of political donations.
II. Real Party’s Claim Impermissibly Expands the Ability of Both the Attorney General and Consumers to Bring Suit Against Amici. The gravamen of the Attorney General’s allegations in the underlying complaint
are as follows: (1) Relators solicited political donations using broad political appeals, (2)
those broad appeals were—in some yet undefined way—confusing, misleading, or
deceptive, and (3) that solicitation of political donations provided the “service of
crowdsourcing political donations for legal political purposes.” See M.R.0004-10; Real
Party’s Br. at 23. It is easy to see how this same DTPA framework could be improperly
used against Amici and others like them.
First, the DTPA excludes charitable donors to religious organizations and
individuals participating in almsgiving from the definition of “consumer,” in the same
way it excludes political donors and voters. This exclusion is consistent with the
common understanding of the term “consumer.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines a
consumer as someone who “buys goods or services for personal, family, or household
use, with no intention of resale; a natural person who uses products for personal rather
than business purposes.” See Consumer, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). Similarly,
Merriam-Webster defines “consumer” as a “one that utilizes economic goods.”
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/consumer (last visited Sept. 17, 2025).
8 Amici are gravely concerned that interpreting the definition of “consumer” to
include donors would expand the statute’s reach far beyond what the legislature
intended, rendering it overbroad and capable of selective misuse. See Bryan v. City of
Madison, Miss., 213 F.3d 267, 277 (5th Cir. 2000) (recognizing a selective enforcement
claim where a “government official’s acts were motivated by improper considerations,
such as race, religion, or the desire to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right.”).4
The broad definition of “consumer” advanced by the Attorney General would render
the clear textual limitations in the DTPA meaningless and its adoption would render
any of Amici’s donors or potential donors “consumers” under the DTPA.
In short, if the DTPA can be read to encompass political donors, it will
necessarily encompass religious donors and charitable donors as well.
Second, the DTPA excludes almsgiving and the solicitation of charitable
donations from its definition of “trade” and “commerce” in the same way it excludes
the solicitation of political contributions. This too is consistent with the common
understanding of the words “trade” and “commerce.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines
trade as “the business of buying and selling or bartering goods or services,” Trade,
Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), and commerce as the “exchange of goods and
services, esp[ecially] on a large scale involving transportation between cities, states, and
4 “[R]etaliation for an attempt to exercise one’s religion or free speech would be expected to qualify” as an actionable form of selective enforcement. Id. at 277 n.18.
9 countries.” Commerce, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). Here again, an adoption
of the Attorney General’s proposed expansion of the DTPA’s definitions of “trade”
and “commerce” in the political context would inescapably sweep in all fundraising
appeals, including appeals by religious organizations.
Third, political donations generally involve an individual donating money to
further the goals of a particular political candidate, political party, or issue-based
organization. These donations are made without an expectation of commercial benefit.5
The majority of political donations are small-dollar donations: $5, $10, or $20 is often
all a donor can afford to give. As a result, political organizations must aggregate the
donations they receive and, depending on the amount received, make a strategic choice
about how to deploy those funds to reach a larger goal or advance a particular cause.
Similarly, religiously motivated donations possess many of the same hallmarks
as political donations. Faith-based donations and religious almsgiving typically involve
an individual donating money to a religious organization to further the values of a
particular faith or religious denomination. Amici are actively involved in soliciting
donations from members to, among other things, live in accordance with the charitable
tenets of their faith and spread their shared values of freedom, justice, faith, and
5 Indeed, making a campaign contribution for the specific purpose of receiving direct monetary or commercial benefit that rises to the level of a quid pro quo could—in many cases—be a criminal offense for one or both parties involved. See, e.g., United States v. Menendez, 291 F. Supp. 3d 606, 624 (D.N.J. 2018).
10 community throughout Texas. These donations are made without an expectation of
commercial benefit. And, like all organizations that fundraise or collect donations,
religious organizations like Amici must aggregate the donations they receive and,
depending on the amount received, make a strategic choice about how to deploy those
funds to reach a larger goal in accordance with their faith, mission, and values.
The aggregation of donations is a necessary element of all fundraising, no matter
the cause or goal. If the definition of “services” is expanded to include the aggregation
of political donations—a byproduct of charitable giving in every context—it necessarily
follows that the aggregation of religiously-motivated donations or other charitable
donations would also be a service under the DTPA. This broad expansion leaves Amici
and others like them subject to the threat of a DTPA action by anyone who disagreed
with a particular expenditure of funds.
Fourth, political fundraising involves motivational and aspirational language.
Indeed, the Attorney General cites to fundraising pleas like “pitch in now to support
Texas Democrats as they fight Trump’s plot to steal five congressional seats” and
“Texas Democrats are fighting back. Help support their efforts to stop Trump’s
redistricting[,]” as examples of misleading or deceptive conduct.
Religious organizations like Amici also routinely use aspirational, faith-based
language in fundraising: “Help us serve the poor.” “Support our community outreach.”
“Join us in prayer and action.” And religious texts and sermons are—as the coalition of
Amici can attest—inherently personal and subjective. Soliciting donations in general 11 terms to, for example, “advance the goals of justice,” “spread the teachings of Jesus
Christ,” or “live in accordance with Proverbs 11:24-25,” are all subject to individual
interpretation.
Subjecting aspirational fundraising appeals to DTPA review would chill religious
expression and burden the free exercise of religion. Religious organizations would have
to self-censor or avoid making broad, inspirational appeals altogether for fear that a
disgruntled donor or the Attorney General could allege “deception” or
“misrepresentation,” even if the language is typical of religious fundraising.6
This enforcement framework would run counter to decades of First Amendment
precedent that affords special protections to political, religious, and charitable
solicitation. As the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear:
[C]haritable appeals for funds, on the street or door to door, involve a variety of speech interests—communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes—that are within the protection of the First Amendment. Soliciting financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regulation but the latter must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political, or social issues, and for the reality that without solicitation the flow of such information and advocacy would likely cease.
6 This risk is all the more acute considering the fact that the IRS recently agreed, in a Joint Motion for Consent Judgment, to allow religious leaders to endorse candidates from the pulpit to their congregations under certain circumstances without risking the church’s tax-exempt status. See Nat’l. Religious Broadcasters et al. v. Long, Case No. 6:24-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 35 (July 7, 2025).
12 Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 632 (1980). The Attorney
General is supplanting the clear First Amendment protections afforded to fundraising
appeals engaged in by both Relators and Amici in favor of selective DTPA enforcement
actions.
III. The First Amendment and the Texas Constitution Protect Freedom of Speech and Prohibit Retaliation for Disfavored Speech. The First Amendment prohibits government retaliation on the basis of protected
speech. See, e.g., Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006). This is true even when the
retaliatory action is otherwise legal. Government officials—like the Attorney General—
“cannot do indirectly what [they are] barred from doing directly.” See, e.g., Nat’l Rifle
Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67
(1963). Retaliatory government actions—whether direct or indirect, formal or
informal—chill speech and cause self-censorship. See, e.g., Virginia v. Am. Booksellers
Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150–51 (1959)
(inhibiting expressive freedom occurs “by making the individual more reluctant to
exercise it”).
Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that viewpoint discrimination is an
egregious violation of the First Amendment. In Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of
Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995), after a public university denied funding to a Christian
student newspaper, the U.S. Supreme Court declared:
13 When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.
And—as Texas Courts have repeatedly recognized—the Texas Constitution
grants broader speech protections than the United States Constitution does by virtue
of its affirmative guarantee of the right, as opposed to a limiting principle. See, e.g.,
Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Tex. 1992).
Amici are troubled by the evidence that the underlying lawsuit is retaliatory in
nature, designed not to protect Texans from deceptive trade practices, but to stifle
otherwise protected speech that the Attorney General happens to disagree with.7 In
addition to their charitable giving, Amici are often driven by their faith to speak on issues
of justice and compassion. Amici have all spoken publicly in opposition to policies that
they believe to be in direct contradiction with the tenets of their faith, including the
treatment of immigrants and family separation.
7 Amici’s concerns are far from unfounded. In a case involving a similar DTPA enforcement action brought by the Attorney General against Media Matters, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that Media Matters was likely to succeed on its claim that the DTPA enforcement action was retaliatory in nature. See Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 138 F.4th 563, 580-81 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
14 Although these topics are often viewed as “political,” Amici’s advocacy in this
area is driven by the teachings of their faith:
“When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt[.]” Leviticus 19:33-34.
“You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of the stranger, for you were also strangers in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 23:9.
“For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in.” Matthew 25:35.
As explained below, an adoption of the interpretation of the DTPA advanced by
the Attorney General will chill the speech and charitable activities of Amici and others
like them for fear of retribution if they solicit funds in the name of advancing religious
freedom and then distribute those funds to support causes the Attorney General
disfavors.
IV. Real Party’s Continued Pursuit of Retaliatory DTPA Claims Against Relators Will Chill Protected Speech and Charitable Activities of Amici. Expanding deceptive trade practices scrutiny to religious fundraising and
charitable donations would apply consumer-litigation standards designed without
consideration for the nuances of faith-based or charitable giving. The threat of selective
enforcement actions, unclear liability, statutory penalties, and reputational harm would
15 force religious organizations with limited resources to narrow their charitable giving or
end such programs altogether.
This risk is especially acute for charitable outreach that—in recent years,
depending on the work of the charity—has come under increased scrutiny by the
Attorney General. See, e.g., Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc., No. 24-0573, 2025 WL
1536224, at *1-*2 (Tex. May 30, 2025); In re Office of Attorney Gen., No. 15-24-00091-CV,
2025 WL 2204075, at *2 (Tex. App. [15th Dist.] Aug. 4, 2025) (detailing discovery
requested from Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley).
Amici’s ability to engage in effective, meaningful charity depends on speed and
flexibility—especially in crises. With the additional threat of prosecution under the
DTPA, Amici and other religious organizations would be forced to slow-walk or decline
emergency assistance, avoid innovative partnerships, and limit support to the safest,
most bureaucratically defensible charitable giving. The result is fewer meals served,
fewer shelters opened, fewer families helped, and fewer lives saved.
Layering the threat of DTPA enforcement on top of the regulation that religious
and religiously affiliated organizations already face is unnecessary and unwarranted.
Organizations like Amici already must comply with IRS rules and regulations, federal
and state oversight of charities, fiduciary duty requirements, and accountability to their
members and supporters. The marginal deterrence gained by expanding DTPA
enforcement to encompass political and charitable giving is outweighed by the chilling
effect and resource diversion that will come from the threat of such enforcement. The 16 additional compliance burden alone would siphon time and tithes from community
service activities to paperwork: policies, disclosures, audits, legal reviews, and
documentation of any and all representations made regarding the use of donated funds.
See, e.g., Annunciation House, Inc., 2025 WL 1536224, at *1-*2 (describing Attorney
General’s investigation of religious charitable organization that provides shelter and
resources to the needy regardless of their immigration status). Faced with that tradeoff,
many faith-based and religious organizations will retreat from charitable activity
altogether—precisely the opposite of what vulnerable Texans need.
Critically, smaller organizations would be the least equipped to shoulder this
financial burden, considering the expansive power that the Attorney General has to
freeze assets in response to suspected violations of the DTPA and the substantial fines
that can be imposed, should a violation ultimately be found.
V. Direct Harm Will Befall Amici and the Communities They Serve If Mandamus Is Not Granted. If religious organizations like Amici are forced to curtail or sanitize their
fundraising speech out of fear of enforcement under the DTPA, the consequences will
reverberate far and wide. Faith communities rely on heartfelt appeals to support food
pantries, disaster relief, homeless shelters, and outreach ministries that serve the most
vulnerable. In cities and rural areas alike, faith-based clinics and counseling centers are
often the only lifeline for underprivileged Texans. The potential chilling of religious
17 fundraising speech is not an abstract legal harm; it would result in a direct blow to the
safety net that countless Texans depend on.
Beyond the potential loss of services, the erosion of trust between religious
organizations and the communities they serve will be profound. When faith-based
charities must second-guess every word in their appeals, their messages become sterile,
bureaucratic, and disconnected from the spiritual mission that inspires generosity.
Donors, sensing hesitation and fear, may withdraw their support. Communities that
once saw Amici as a beacon of hope and compassion will instead see uncertainty and
retreat. The bonds of trust—built over generations through shared sacrifice and
service—will fray, leaving both the organizations and the people they serve isolated and
diminished. In the end, the chilling of religious speech undermines not only the work
of faith-based groups like Amici, but the very fabric of community life in our state.
And the harm will not stop with Amici. If the Attorney General’s unprecedented
use of the DTPA against political fundraising continues, it will empower current and
future Attorneys General to target a wide array of non-profit, advocacy, religious, and
charitable organizations—especially those disfavored by the government of the day—
under the guise of “consumer protection.” The shadow of DTPA enforcement will
undoubtedly curtail the solicitation of charitable donations and the spending of donated
funds across Texas.
18 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Amici live their faith by helping the most vulnerable among us and are compelled
to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. The threat of selective prosecution
should the Attorney General be permitted to advance the underlying action—and
others like it—will frustrate Amici’s efforts to practice their faith by exposing them to
possible prosecution for raising funds for charitable causes disfavored by the Attorney
General. Not only will that harm befall Amici but those most in need of assistance, those
who turn to faith-based organizations for safety and shelter, will no longer find refuge.
Those that Amici seek to help will be—literally and figuratively—left in the cold once
more.
Amici join Relators in their request for a mandamus to issue to order Respondent
to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the DTPA.
19 DATED: September 19, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
Peter Steffensen /s/ Kathryn “Kassi” Yukevich State Bar No. 24106464 Kathryn “Kassi” Yukevich Molly Ryan* State Bar No. 24133390 State Bar No. 24148032 TILLOTSON JOHNSON & PATTON Amanda Sparks* 1201 Main St., Suite 1300 State Bar No. 24148033 Dallas, Texas 75202 SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW Telephone: (214) 382-3046 FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC Facsimile: (214) 501-0731 P.O. Box 750116 kyukevich@tillotsonlaw.com Dallas, TX 75275-0116 Telephone: (214) 768-4077 Thomas S. Leatherbury psteffensen@smu.edu State Bar No. 12095275 THOMAS S. LEATHERBURY LAW, PLLC Cumberland Hill School Building 1901 North Akard Street Dallas, TX 75201-2305 (214) 213-5004 tom@tsleatherburylaw.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of
Amici Curiae has been electronically filed and served on all counsel of record. See Tex.
R. App. P. 9.2(c)(1), 9.5(b)(1).
/s/ Kathryn “Kassi” Yukevich Kathryn “Kassi” Yukevich
* Associate Member of the State Bar, authorized under Rule VI.A(4) of the Rules Governing the Supervised Practice of Law by Qualified Law Students.
20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) because it contains 4,485 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Garamond font.
/s/ Kathryn “Kassi” Yukevich Kathryn “Kassi” Yukevich
21 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Kathryn Yukevich Bar No. 24133390 kyukevich@tillotsonlaw.com Envelope ID: 105856097 Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Brief for Amici Curiae in Support of Relators Status as of 9/22/2025 7:23 AM CST
Associated Case Party: State of Texas
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
William Cole 24124187 William.Cole@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Rob Farquharson rob.farquharson@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Abby Smith abby.smith@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Johnathan Stone johnathan.stone@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
William Peterson William.Peterson@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Justin Sassaman justin.sassaman@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Sean McCaffity 24013122 smccaffity@textrial.com 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Robert Farquharson 24100550 rob.farquharson@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Maria Williamson maria.williamson@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
William FCole William.Cole@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Mimi Marziani mmarziani@msgpllc.com 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Joaquin Gonzalez jgonzalez@msgpllc.com 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Brian Falligant` bfalligant@inquestresources.com 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Pauline Sisson pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Rebecca Stevens bstevens@msgpllc.com 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Emily Samuels emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
William Peterson william.peterson@oag.texas.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Rebecca Neumann rneumann@textrial.com 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Nancy Bentley ndbentley@tarrantcountytx.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Kathryn Yukevich Bar No. 24133390 kyukevich@tillotsonlaw.com Envelope ID: 105856097 Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Brief for Amici Curiae in Support of Relators Status as of 9/22/2025 7:23 AM CST
Case Contacts
Nancy Bentley ndbentley@tarrantcountytx.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT
Lisa Adams LAAdams@tarrantcountytx.gov 9/19/2025 5:52:15 PM SENT