U.S. District Judge Alan Albright ruled Wednesday that Texas cannot prevent its own pension funds from being invested with companies that boycott the state’s energy sector. The February 4 decision struck down Senate Bill 13, a 2021 law designed to protect Texas’ largest industry from Wall Street’s climate agenda.
The ruling demonstrates a fundamental problem with the federal system: Texas voters elect representatives who pass laws defending Texas interests, and federal judges with lifetime appointments overrule them. The pattern continues regardless of which party controls Washington or which president appoints the judges.
Albright is a Trump appointee, confirmed by the Senate in September 2018. His ruling sided with financial firms over Texas sovereignty, declaring that forcing state pension funds to divest from companies boycotting fossil fuels violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision protects Wall Street’s right to target Texas energy while denying Texas the right to respond.
The mechanics of SB 13 were straightforward. The Texas Comptroller maintained a list of financial companies refusing to do business with fossil fuel firms “without ordinary business purpose.” State entities managing public money—including the Teacher Retirement System and the Texas Permanent School Fund—were required to divest from listed companies. The state identified more than 300 firms engaged in what the legislature considered economic warfare against Texas’ energy foundation.
Texas produces 43% of America’s crude oil and generates more electricity than any other state. The energy sector built the modern Texas economy and continues funding schools, roads, and state services through production taxes and royalties. When financial firms announced they would factor “climate risk” into investment decisions—code for boycotting fossil fuels—the Texas Legislature responded with SB 13.
The American Sustainable Business Coalition filed suit in August 2024, claiming the law violated free speech rights. Judge Albright agreed, ruling that SB 13’s definition of “boycotting” was “facially overbroad” and “impermissibly vague.” He found the law had already led to “discriminatory enforcement” after state pension funds divested billions from blacklisted firms.
The ruling’s implications extend beyond investment policy. Texas attempted to protect its economic foundation through democratic means—voters elected legislators who promised fossil fuel protection, those legislators passed SB 13, and the governor signed it into law. The federal judiciary overruled the entire process with a 12-page order.
This pattern repeats across policy areas. Texas First Pledge signers commit to prioritizing Texas sovereignty over federal mandates precisely because the federal system grants Washington veto power over Texas decisions. Even when Texas exercises authority over purely state matters—how to invest state pension funds—federal courts intervene.
The economic costs compound the sovereignty violations. The American Sustainable Business Coalition claimed SB 13 cost Texas “hundreds of millions of dollars” in investment returns. But that figure ignores the alternative: allowing continued boycotts of Texas energy without response would have permitted systematic economic discrimination against the state’s foundational industry.
The Teacher Retirement System manages retirement security for Texas educators. The Texas Permanent School Fund generates revenue for K-12 education. Federal courts now dictate that these Texas institutions must remain open to investment managers who actively work to undermine Texas economic interests. The Comptroller’s office, which oversees state investment portfolios, cannot exclude firms that refuse to invest in Texas energy companies.
Texas has been systematically building economic independence infrastructure through initiatives like gold-backed currency and the Texas Stock Exchange—institutions designed to operate on the principle that Texans should control Texas systems. Yet the federal judiciary continues blocking Texas from even basic investment decisions about its own pension funds.
An independent Texas wouldn’t face this problem. The Texas Supreme Court would decide questions of Texas law. No federal judge could override the democratic will of Texas voters. Texas could protect its energy sector—or any other industry critical to state interests—without seeking permission from federal courts in Austin or appeals courts in New Orleans or the Supreme Court in Washington.
The ruling exposes what the Texas Nationalist Movement has documented for years: the federal system prevents Texas from governing itself. The Texas Independence Referendum Act addresses this structural problem by giving Texans a direct vote on whether to continue accepting federal veto power over Texas decisions.
Judge Albright’s decision didn’t just strike down one law. It demonstrated that under the federal system, Texas will always be subject to oversight by judges who don’t answer to Texas voters and courts that prioritize federal supremacy over state sovereignty. The question isn’t whether Texas has the right to defend its economic interests. The question is whether Texas will continue accepting a system where that right means nothing without federal approval.
Support the fight for Texas independence at tnm.me.
