Alright, grab a seat. We need to talk about what’s cooking in Texas politics, specifically with the folks wanting to be your next Attorney General. They’re not just talking about regular laws; they’re eyeing some really old Supreme Court decisions and saying, “Let’s toss ‘em.” Picture this: Back in 1975, Texas passed a law that basically told school districts they could kick undocumented students out of free public schools. One district in Tyler did just that. Well, some families didn't take that sitting down, and they sued. This led to a huge case called Plyler v. Doe. And guess what? The U.S. Supreme Court said, “Nope, Texas. That’s unconstitutional.” They ruled that kids, no matter their immigration status, have a right to a public education. That decision has stood for five decades. Fast forward to today, at a candidate forum in that very same town of Tyler, the Republican hopefuls for Texas Attorney General laid out their battle plan. And it’s a big one: They want to use the AG’s office to try and get that Plyler v. Doe ruling overturned. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy called it one of his “foremost priorities.” Sen. Mayes Middleton agreed, calling it a “terrible decision” ripe for overturning by the current conservative Supreme Court. Now, this isn’t just campaign talk. These promises from both candidates show us how Texas’s next AG might go even further than the current one, Ken Paxton. They want to really channel the office’s power towards the big legal goals of the conservative movement. Why now? Well, the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade was a huge win for conservatives. It basically showed them that even really old, respected rulings aren’t untouchable. And with the current Supreme Court leaning conservative, many are itching to go after other long-standing rulings. We’re talking about decisions that allow gay marriage, rulings that keep government and religion separate, and even ones that give the federal government power over the states. Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck pointed out that Roy and Middleton are making it clear they want to push a partisan agenda even harder than Paxton did. He thinks it’s pretty bold for one state’s attorney general, even Texas’, to think they should be leading the charge on what the Constitution means for the whole country. Some might call that "Texas-sized hubris." Both Roy and Middleton, who are headed for a runoff, didn’t respond to requests for comment. But Roy, at that Tyler forum, didn’t hold back. He said he has a whole list of cases he’d like to challenge if he wins. “We could sit here all night talking about cases that Texas ought to be challenging,” he said, stressing that they need to be challenging things “at every single turn.” This isn't your grandfather's AG office anymore. Thirty years ago, most state attorney general offices, including Texas’, were pretty quiet. They handled things like child support or lawsuits against state agencies. But that started to change in the 1990s. States began teaming up for huge consumer protection lawsuits, like the ones against big tobacco companies. Suddenly, attorneys general were on the front lines, pushing public policy through the courts. At first, these state legal actions were pretty bipartisan. But that changed big time during the Obama administration. Red states, with then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott leading the way, started suing to block federal executive orders on things like the environment and immigration. They got a boost from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that gave states a "special solicitude" to sue the federal government on behalf of their citizens. Then came Trump, and blue states started suing his administration. When Joe Biden took office in 2021, Paxton vowed to throw the whole agency’s weight against Biden’s agenda. Texas ended up suing the Biden administration over 100 times, hitting everything from abortion rules to COVID vaccines. More recently, Paxton has been suing nonprofits, private companies, and even local governments over "culture war" issues. Both Roy and Middleton have promised to keep that partisan litigation tradition alive. Roy, who worked for Paxton a decade ago, proudly mentions his role in suing the Obama administration and trying to block the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Middleton, known as a very conservative legislator, highlights his work on pro-religion and anti-LGBTQ bills. One of his bills is actually testing old legal precedent right now. Last session, Middleton helped push a bill that would require public schools to hang the Ten Commandments in classrooms. A judge stopped that law from taking effect, citing a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that said such a requirement was unconstitutional. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has let the law move forward while they hear arguments against it. This isn't just about religious display; it's about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which means the government can't endorse a religion. Middleton, at the Tyler forum, didn't mince words about it. He said, “We have to defeat these atheist precedents that have stopped prayer in school, that have stopped children from going to Christian schools, and frankly, that have stopped what made our country great, which is our faith.” He called the separation of church and state a “false doctrine.” If he becomes AG, he’d be defending these kinds of lawsuits and looking for other ways to push the religious freedom agenda. Vladeck isn’t so sure this Supreme Court is eager to reverse itself on those specific issues, but he admits “things can change quickly.” He also wonders why a state AG would see themselves as leading this charge when their job is typically to enforce state law, not redefine the U.S. Constitution. Roy has been more direct about wanting to overturn legal precedent. He’s even named Wickard v. Filburn, a Great Depression-era case that gave the federal government huge authority over almost any commerce that could affect other states. Many conservative legal groups, including the Texas Public Policy Foundation (where Roy used to work), argue that this ruling took too much power from the states. While one federal judge shut down TPPF’s lawsuit, two other federal judges have allowed similar challenges to move forward, opening the door for higher courts to get involved. Overturning Wickard would dramatically shift power back to the states, changing how the federal government regulates everything from agriculture to healthcare. Roy has also talked about overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. He says, “There’s a war raging against our souls as Texans, and those things need to be fought.” This ruling, rooted in the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection, essentially solidified a fundamental right to marry for all individuals. Undoing it would return the legality of same-sex marriage to individual states, potentially creating a patchwork of rights across the country. Normally, an attorney general might have to wait for the Legislature to pass a law that challenges an old ruling, then hope the state gets sued, giving them a chance to take it to the Supreme Court. But the current AG has found ways around that. For example, when legislators didn’t pass Middleton’s bill to stop undocumented college students from getting in-state tuition, Paxton worked with the Trump Department of Justice to try and overturn the law through the courts anyway. This shows you how an AG can be pretty creative in advancing their political goals. The next AG could do something similar if there isn’t enough political will in the Legislature. For instance, if lawmakers aren't interested in challenging that Plyler ruling about public school access for undocumented students – which one Republican told the Tribune is the case for the “mainstream of the Republican caucus” – an AG could still find a way to push the issue. It's not just about what laws are passed; it's also about who's in charge of interpreting and defending them. Vladeck says this sort of maneuvering is an “inevitable consequence” of the AG’s office becoming so political. When state attorneys general see themselves as more than just enforcers of state law, but as front-line advocates for broader political causes, it’s not surprising, though it can be a bit concerning, to see them so open about their ambitious goals. It really shakes up the traditional role of a state’s top lawyer. So, if you’re keeping score, what you’re seeing here is a fundamental debate about the scope of judicial power, the balance between state and federal authority, and the very interpretation of constitutional rights. The outcomes of these challenges could redefine education access, marital rights, religious freedom in schools, and federal regulatory power for everyone in Texas and potentially the entire country. It’s a big deal, and it’s right on our doorstep.