You know that person who always sticks to their principles, even if it means ruffling feathers? That's U.S. Rep. Chip Roy. He's built a name in Washington for challenging his own party's leaders, including former President Donald Trump and current Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Roy says his unwavering loyalty isn't to a person or a party, but to Texas and to the Constitution itself. And he believes that independent, strict constitutional approach is exactly what the state needs in its next top lawyer. Roy, an Austin Republican, is a frontrunner to take over the Attorney General's office, a spot he once held as Paxton's top deputy. He's leaning into his strong conservative background and deep government experience, pitching a 'Texas-first' platform for an office that's become a powerhouse in national political and legal battles. "Folks look to the Texas Attorney General's Office to lead, to hold the line when the federal government oversteps," Roy told The Texas Tribune. "You have to do that no matter who's running the White House. We've got to defend Texas. That's our fundamental job." But this independent streak has also given Roy's rivals plenty to talk about. He was the first Republican to publicly call for Paxton to resign after his top aides accused him of bribery and abuse of office. Roy also voted to certify the 2020 election results, and he stated President Trump's actions on January 6th showed "clearly impeachable conduct." He's even stalled major Republican priorities over concerns about spending and constitutional boundaries, often for what some see as limited results. Aaron Reitz, a former Paxton deputy now running against Roy, put it bluntly: "Chip Roy betrayed and abandoned the president and the attorney general over and over again." For Roy, these are just badges of honor, proof of his commitment to the Constitution – a commitment he argues Republican voters should demand from their Attorney General. He likes to remind people that even Trump once called him "not easy, but he's good." Roy sees that as high praise. He argues the relationship between a state official and the president, regardless of who it is, should be about legal defense and adherence to founding documents. "You need someone who's shown strength and independence," Roy emphasized. "We have to defend Texas, our borders, our streets, keep things safe, and protect ourselves from federal interference, no matter who's in charge up there." Let's dive into some specifics of his constitutional approach. **The Paradox of Federalism and State Power: A Case Study** Imagine you're in a situation where you agree with a goal but hate the way it's being achieved. That's exactly where Roy found himself one December, caught in what he called a "paradox." Congressional Republicans wanted to make providing hormone therapy to transgender minors a federal crime. Roy absolutely supported the idea of criminalizing such actions, reflecting a common conservative stance on these medical interventions. However, his strong belief in limited government immediately raised a big red flag for him. From Roy's perspective, making this a *federal* crime was a dangerous overreach. It felt like the federal government was sticking its nose into areas traditionally handled by states, like medical practice and family law. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear: powers not given to the federal government, nor forbidden to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people. This is the heart of what we call "federalism," a system that divides governmental power between national and state levels. When Congress tries to legislate on issues like specific medical treatments, especially for minors, it steps into a complex legal area. States typically regulate healthcare within their borders. A federal law criminalizing this could be seen as an attempt to supersede state authority, potentially setting a precedent for Washington to dictate other local medical standards or even criminalize other state-level issues. Roy argued that while the policy goal might be right in his view, the *method* of achieving it was constitutionally unsound. He even suggested an amendment to fix the perceived overreach, but eventually, he dropped it and voted for the bill, facing pressure from his colleagues. This episode truly shows you the tightrope walk of a limited-government absolutist in modern politics. **Early Years and a Rising GOP Tide** Roy might have grown up in the D.C. suburbs, but he'll quickly tell you his Texas roots run deep. His family history here includes a Texas Ranger, a small-town police chief grandfather, and a grandmother who was the first female county clerk in Nolan County. After college and a brief stint in finance, Roy moved to Texas for law school in 2000, right as the Republican Party was really taking off in the state. His first government gig was clerking for then-Attorney General John Cornyn, the very office he now hopes to lead. When Cornyn became a U.S. Senator, Roy followed him to Washington to work on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, giving him an early education in federal legal and legislative processes. After some time as a federal prosecutor, Roy linked up with then-Gov. Rick Perry just as the Tea Party movement was gaining steam, pushing for smaller government and states' rights. Roy even ghostwrote Perry's book, "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington." That book articulated the frustrations many Texans felt with federal intervention. "This was 2010; we were saying, 'Look, we're Texas. We're doing great, and we don't want Washington sticking its nose in our business,'" Roy recalled on a conservative podcast. "That idea – being fed up with a Supreme Court, Congress, and presidency telling Texas what to do – was central to the book." In 2011, at 39, Roy faced a personal battle with Stage 3 Hodgkin's Lymphoma. But beating cancer only seemed to fuel his passion for conservative legal fights. In 2013, he returned to D.C. as Sen. Ted Cruz's first chief of staff, even more determined. He played a key role behind the scenes when Cruz pushed to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act. This was a significant public policy clash, testing the limits of legislative power and the appropriations process. While the effort ultimately failed, it cemented Roy's reputation as a hard-nosed operative willing to push boundaries for his beliefs. "Was I deeply involved? Yes. Unapologetically. I thought it was the right strategy," Roy told The Texas Tribune in 2019. This experience taught him a lot about high-stakes constitutional battles. **Bringing Stability to the Attorney General's Office** After two intense years with Cruz, Roy came back to the Texas Attorney General's Office as Ken Paxton's first assistant. You can imagine the challenge: Greg Abbott, the previous AG, had taken many of his key staff with him when he became Governor. So, Roy helped Paxton build a new team from scratch. He helped bring in some sharp legal minds, many of whom have since gone on to big roles, like Jim Davis, now president of the University of Texas, and Brantley Starr, who became a federal judge. Under Roy, the office hit the ground running, aggressively challenging major policies from the Obama administration, especially those related to environmental rules and immigration. Solicitor General Scott Keller, for example, argued before the Supreme Court an impressive 11 times during this period. That's a lot of high-level constitutional litigation for a state's top legal team. Bernard McNamee, who was also part of that initial team, noted, "Chip knew it was important to make sure the office ran smoothly. There was a real focus on the big, headline issues, but Chip made sure we never forgot about the daily work." While Roy and Paxton were on the same page ideologically, they reportedly clashed over how much control Roy had in running the agency. Roy left in 2016, part of a series of staff changes during Paxton's time. Roy now says he and Paxton had "differences of opinion" on how to manage the office but hasn't gone into more detail. If elected, Roy plans to start just like he did then: by hiring the best lawyers and diving into significant cases. He says he wants to restore stability and improve staff retention within the agency. He also intends to reinvigorate the everyday functions of the office, like child support enforcement and consumer protection, and increase public outreach – something he feels has dwindled under the current administration. "I don't mean that as a criticism, but things have changed," he noted in an interview. "We're in an aggressive time where we need to use that bully pulpit almost daily to highlight important issues." This speaks to the AG's role not just as a lawyer, but as a public advocate for the state's legal positions. **Future Legal Strategy: Challenging Major Precedents** Roy has laid out an ambitious legal agenda, vowing to tackle some of the most established Supreme Court decisions. He's said he'd work to overturn *Plyler v. Doe*, a 1982 ruling that requires public schools to educate undocumented immigrant children. This decision is rooted in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that denying education to a specific group of children lacks a substantial state purpose and creates a permanent underclass. Overturning *Plyler* would be a monumental legal task, requiring a new Supreme Court case and a significant shift in constitutional interpretation, with profound public policy implications for hundreds of thousands of children in Texas. He also wants to challenge *Obergefell v. Hodges*, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. *Obergefell* is based on both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, recognizing a fundamental right to marry. For a state AG to actively "work to overturn" such a well-established precedent would involve initiating new legal challenges or supporting other states' efforts, a move that would undoubtedly face immense legal and political opposition, impacting the constitutional rights of countless individuals. Roy has also been a vocal opponent of what he terms the "Islamification" of the country, a fight he promises to bring to Texas as Attorney General. This position raises significant questions under the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which protect religious freedom and prevent governmental endorsement of religion. Any legal actions on this front would be scrutinized heavily for potential violations of civil liberties. He has also vowed to be aggressive in pursuing voter fraud investigations and prosecutions, and to "roll over" left-leaning district attorneys, reflecting a desire to assert state control over local law enforcement decisions and election integrity. The Attorney General's office has some power to intervene in local matters, but these actions would face legal challenges regarding the separation of powers and local prosecutorial discretion. **The Immigration Battle: Texas vs. Washington** Perhaps the most pressing and constitutionally charged issue Roy has focused on is immigration. He believes Texas needs to be proactive, launching legal challenges to enforce its own immigration laws even after Trump leaves office, rather than just waiting for the next federal administration's border policies. This is a big deal because immigration enforcement has historically been the job of the federal government, thanks to federal preemption, which means federal law generally overrides state law when the two conflict or when Congress intends to occupy a field exclusively. "I believe Texas has a right to defend its 1,100-mile border and not just be beholden to whatever Washington does," Roy stated. He also pushes the "invasion arguments," claiming that Texas is under an "invasion" and therefore has a constitutional right to self-defense under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This clause, often called the "invasion clause," typically refers to military invasions by foreign powers. Using it to justify state-level immigration enforcement is a novel and highly contested legal interpretation currently being debated in federal courts, as seen with Texas's SB4 law. It's a strategy that could radically redefine the balance of power between states and the federal government on border issues, with huge implications for due process and civil rights. Roy's conservative message has attracted major donors, like Amarillo billionaire Alex Fairly, and key endorsements, including Sen. Ted Cruz. He started the race with a lead, though it's tightened as state Sen. Mayes Middleton has poured millions into his own campaign. Middleton, Aaron Reitz, and Houston Sen. Joan Huffman are all vying for a runoff spot with Roy, and they're using his past clashes with party leaders as their main weapon. **Clashes with Former Allies and the Question of Loyalty** When news broke in October 2020 that top deputies in the Attorney General's office had reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office related to a real estate developer, Nate Paul, Roy didn't hesitate. While many Republicans stayed silent, Roy quickly called for Paxton's resignation. "The Attorney General deserves his day in court, but the people of Texas deserve a fully functioning AG's office," he said in a statement. He emphasized that the agency was "too critical to the state and her people to leave in chaos." This was a strong public policy stance, arguing for the stability and integrity of a key state legal institution over partisan loyalty. Paxton, of course, didn't resign. He was reelected two years later, and many of his legal issues have since faded. He's now running against Roy's other former boss, Cornyn, for a Senate seat. Paxton has endorsed Aaron Reitz, his former deputy, to replace him, and Reitz has hammered Roy for what he calls disloyalty. "Congressman Roy was the very first elected official in America to call for Ken Paxton's removal," Reitz declared at a forum, to applause. "If you want someone who stands with Paxton, has been endorsed by him, is loyal and not a traitor, I'm your only option." Roy, however, says he and Paxton are now on good terms. But he hasn't backed down from his original stance, explaining he felt he had to defend his former colleagues who reported Paxton. "When they were being thrown under the bus, I felt like I owed it to them to defend them," he told Texas Scorecard. "I stick with my friends and defend them when I feel like they're being attacked." This highlights a tension between political loyalty and the duty to uphold the rule of law, even against those in your own party. This agency scandal unfolded while Roy was in a tough reelection fight against Democrat Wendy Davis, who brought significant name recognition and money into the race. Roy won that 2020 contest by seven points, securing his return to Congress just before another major party crisis emerged. **Trump Criticisms and Constitutional Principles** After Trump lost the 2020 election, many Republicans quickly echoed his claims that the election was stolen. Roy agreed there were reasons to worry, but he grew frustrated when no one could produce solid evidence, according to text messages CNN obtained. He told Mark Meadows, then Trump's chief of staff, that they needed to handle the legal challenge "firmly, intelligently and effectively," without getting caught up in a "conspiracy frenzy." And, he stressed, if Trump had indeed lost, there *had* to be an "orderly transfer of power" – a cornerstone of American constitutional democracy. Paxton and Reitz took a different path, asking the Supreme Court to overturn election results in four states. While many Republicans supported it, Roy called this lawsuit a "dangerous violation of federalism" that would "almost certainly fail." He was right; the Supreme Court tossed the case immediately. But that didn't stop the claims of a stolen election, which tragically culminated in the January 6th Capitol attack. Roy later said Trump engaged in "clearly impeachable conduct" by pressuring Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election results that day. While he voted against impeachment charges brought by Democrats, his comments were a strong rebuke of the president's actions, emphasizing the constitutional role of the Vice President and the integrity of the electoral process. In 2024, Roy even campaigned for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump, further highlighting the divide. This history could be a hurdle for Roy, especially with Texas's strong Trump-friendly GOP base. Opponents like Middleton use ads to detail Roy's rocky relationship with Trump, claiming the president "doesn't trust" him. However, Roy points out he voted with Trump's agenda almost more than any other House member, and they often discuss shared policy goals, like Roy's bill requiring photo ID at the polls, which recently passed the House. Even Cruz has vouched for Roy, saying "no one, and I mean no one, has fought harder to help President Trump make America great again" than Roy. Despite these efforts to shore up support, Roy has stood by his past comments about Trump. He said on WFAA that he "always stands for what I believe in, defending the Constitution and defending the rule of law." He feels confident his record on the issues that matter to GOP voters will ultimately secure him the nomination. "Honestly, the only way I'll lose this election, after all I've done to defend Texas, to fight for conservatism, all my courtroom experience, my legal background, is if someone tries to buy Texas," he declared. "You just do your job. You deliver. And I feel very, very good about my track record." For Roy, it seems, constitutional fidelity isn't just a talking point; it's the foundation of his political and legal identity, and he's banking on Texans agreeing that's what their chief legal officer needs. It's a high-stakes bet on principle over party, and you'll certainly be watching how it plays out for the future of Texas law and public policy.