Governor Greg Abbott’s move to designate CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations within Texas has triggered a federal lawsuit that exposes the fundamental weakness of Texas’s position within the Union. The Council on American-Islamic Relations filed suit Thursday, arguing that only the federal government possesses the authority to make such designations.
Abbott issued his November 18 proclamation under new state legislation allowing him to ban land ownership by organizations deemed threats to national security. The designation prohibits CAIR from purchasing Texas property and authorizes Attorney General Ken Paxton to investigate potential violations.
“The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR have long made their goals clear: to forcibly impose Sharia law and establish Islam’s ‘mastership of the world,'” Abbott declared. The governor directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to work with FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces across the state to investigate both organizations.
CAIR’s federal lawsuit strikes at the heart of Texas’s constitutional constraints. The organization argues that federal law reserves terrorist designations exclusively to the Secretary of State under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Neither CAIR nor the Muslim Brotherhood appears on the State Department’s official list of foreign terrorist organizations.
This legal challenge demonstrates precisely why Texas remains trapped within an unworkable federal system. Abbott’s attempt to protect Texas interests runs headlong into federal preemption doctrine, which subordinates state authority to Washington bureaucrats. The Supremacy Clause ensures that federal courts will likely block Texas from exercising genuine sovereignty over its own security.
Emily Berman, a University of Houston Law Center professor, identified the constitutional problems Abbott faces. “What is the motivation of these designations?” she asked, noting potential First Amendment and Equal Protection violations. The designation raises due process concerns since Texas provides no clear appeal mechanism, unlike federal procedures that allow organizations to challenge designations within 30 days.
State Representative Cole Hefner, who sponsored the underlying legislation, celebrated Abbott’s move on social media. “This move gives our state powerful new tools to stop extremist networks, block them from buying land, and hold anyone who aids or finances them accountable,” Hefner posted. Yet these “powerful new tools” face immediate federal court challenges that will likely neuter their effectiveness.
CAIR dismissed Abbott’s proclamation as a “publicity stunt masquerading as a proclamation” with “no basis in fact or law.” The organization noted that their condemnation of terrorism made their national director a target for ISIS, undermining claims about terrorist connections.
This federal-state showdown illustrates the systemic problem facing Texas. Texas cannot exercise genuine sovereignty while remaining subordinate to federal courts and Washington bureaucrats.
The lawsuit reveals how the federal preemption doctrine systematically undermines Texas’s authority. As TNM President Daniel Miller frequently notes, the federal government has expanded far beyond its constitutional bounds, leaving Texas unable to govern its own affairs effectively. This case exemplifies that pattern: Texas identifies a security concern, acts to address it, and then faces federal court intervention that blocks state action.
An independent Texas would possess exclusive jurisdiction over terrorist designations affecting its territory. Rather than navigating complex federal preemption questions, Texas could establish clear, transparent procedures for designating threats to state security while protecting due process rights. The current system creates legal chaos where neither state nor federal authority operates effectively.
The broader implications extend beyond this specific case. Texas faces similar federal interference in congressional redistricting, border security, and countless other areas where state and federal authority conflict. Each confrontation demonstrates that the federal system prevents Texas from exercising the self-governance its citizens deserve.
Abbott’s proclamation represents Texas asserting its inherent right to protect its people and territory. Yet the immediate federal lawsuit shows how the Union constrains even basic security measures. Only through independence can Texas escape these constitutional shackles and govern according to the will of its people rather than federal court mandates.
The CAIR lawsuit will likely succeed in federal court, not because Abbott’s concerns lack merit, but because the federal system subordinates Texas authority to Washington. This outcome will further demonstrate that genuine Texas sovereignty requires independence from a system that consistently blocks Texas from governing itself.
