The year 2026 emerges as a period of significant legal and policy re-evaluation for Texas, with developments spanning criminal justice, education, public health, and commerce. These issues, many currently engaged in active litigation or regulatory shifts, hold the potential to reshape statutory interpretations, constitutional applications, and governmental operations across the state, profoundly influencing residents' rights and daily lives. Accountability and Due Process in the Uvalde School Shooting Trials The criminal trials linked to the law enforcement response at Robb Elementary in Uvalde in May 2022 highlight critical questions regarding individual culpability and the application of child endangerment statutes to public officials during an emergency. The trial for Adrian Gonzales, a former Uvalde school officer, is scheduled for January 5 in Corpus Christi, involving 29 counts of child endangerment. This prosecution seeks to establish direct criminal liability for actions, or inactions, during the tragic event that resulted in the deaths of 19 students and two teachers. The criminal trial for former school district police Chief Pete Arredondo, facing 10 counts of child endangerment, remains contingent upon the resolution of a federal lawsuit. This suit, initiated by Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell, seeks to compel testimony from federal Border Patrol agents. The interplay between federal civil discovery and state criminal proceedings introduces complexities regarding evidentiary admissibility and witness immunity. Both Gonzales and Arredondo have pleaded not guilty, underscoring the prosecutorial burden to prove criminal intent or severe negligence beyond a reasonable doubt, a significantly higher standard than for civil liability. These cases represent the limited criminal charges from a multi-agency response of nearly 400 officers, raising public policy discussions about the thresholds for criminal accountability in critical incident management. Constitutional Challenges to Prison Conditions The ongoing federal trial concerning inadequate air conditioning in Texas prisons, anticipated in late March, directly challenges the state’s adherence to the Eighth Amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman’s March 2025 order stated that excessive heat likely constitutes unconstitutional punishment. This judicial finding established a prima facie case against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), requiring the state to demonstrate remedial action. The class-action lawsuit alleges that prolonged exposure to extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable populations, leads to serious health risks and fatalities, violating constitutional protections. A majority of incarcerated individuals still lack air conditioning, with TDCJ reporting just over 50,000 "cool beds" as of December 1, far short of the total inmate population. Although lawmakers appropriated $118 million for AC installation, projected to add 18,000 beds, this funding will not fully address the systemic issue. The legal argument centers on "deliberate indifference" of correctional officials to known, substantial risks of harm to inmates, a standard from *Estelle v. Gamble*. The trial will scrutinize TDCJ's installation pace and the state’s fiscal capacity versus its constitutional obligations, potentially leading to a court-ordered remedy. Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Consumable Hemp The legal and regulatory framework governing consumable hemp products in Texas is undergoing significant changes throughout 2026. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) are both poised to finalize permanent rules for sale in early months. For over five years, hemp-derived cannabinoids operated within a complex legal gray area following the 2018 federal Farm Bill, creating state-level definitional challenges. The absence of clear state regulations fostered a rapidly expanding industry that lawmakers sought to restrict in 2025. Following Governor Greg Abbott's veto of a legislative ban, he directed TABC and DSHS to craft rules, notably prohibiting sales to individuals under 21. TABC intends to finalize its rules by January 20, with DSHS following in the first several months. This administrative law process involves state agencies promulgating rules to implement statutory mandates. Further complicating the landscape is a provision in a Congressional bill passed in November, banning national consumable hemp sales effective November 2026. This federal action raises critical questions about state preemption and the supremacy clause, potentially invalidating Texas’s state-level regulations unless federal lawmakers intervene or judicial challenges arise. Re-evaluating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) July 1 marks the first mandatory review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a critical juncture for international trade and the Texas economy. This agreement, which superseded NAFTA in 2020, governs trade relations among the three North American nations. Mexico and Canada are Texas’s two largest trading partners, and existing tariff exemptions under USMCA have largely shielded the state from broader international trade disputes. The review process is likely to evolve beyond routine assessment into a high-stakes negotiation, particularly if former President Donald Trump's administration returns to power. Expectations are that the U.S. will seek concessions on issues beyond traditional trade, including drug trafficking and migration, leveraging trade policy for broader foreign policy objectives. Formal discussions initiating this review are anticipated to commence in mid-January. If all parties consent to renewal, the agreement will extend for another 16 years. Conversely, a delayed or denied renewal could trigger annual reviews, or lead to one or more nations withdrawing, fundamentally shifting national trade policy. The stakes for Texas are high given its deep economic ties; trade with Mexico totaled $281 billion in 2024, and with Canada, $76.1 billion. Any significant disruption to the USMCA framework could result in tariff re-imposition and increased trade barriers for Texas businesses. Navigating Free Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education Texas public universities and colleges confront a complex interplay of state oversight, legal challenges, and evolving interpretations of free speech and academic freedom. A new statewide Office of the Ombudsman, led by Brandon Simmons, begins operations in 2026, investigating complaints related to curriculum, hiring, and faculty discipline. This office holds authority to recommend funding penalties, signaling enhanced state intervention. Simmons’s appointment coincides with a state audit investigation into Texas Southern University’s financial management, underscoring state interest in university governance. New systemwide rules at Texas A&M and Texas Tech University systems mandate curriculum reviews that could lead to revisions or cancellations of spring courses addressing race, sex, and gender. Such directives prompt legal challenges based on First Amendment academic freedom protections. The House and Senate Select Committees on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education will invite public testimony this year, examining new state laws on campus protests and free speech, such as Senate Bill 2972. However, the University of Texas System is enjoined from enforcing parts of this law due to a pending lawsuit, highlighting the judiciary’s role in balancing campus order with constitutional rights. Further judicial intervention is anticipated. In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear a challenge to West Texas A&M University’s drag show ban, after tossing an earlier ruling that found the ban likely violated students’ free speech rights. The decision could establish significant precedent for public university restrictions on expressive events, influencing a separate Texas A&M Systemwide drag ban and setting parameters for content-based restrictions on campus. Implementation and Legal Challenges to School Vouchers Texas's school voucher program, Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), is slated for full implementation in the 2026-27 school year, marking a significant shift in public education funding. Applications for families interested in utilizing public taxpayer dollars for private or home-school education open on February 4 and remain available until March 17. The program, managed by the comptroller’s office, anticipates award notifications in early April, with funds accessible July 1. Most private school students will receive $10,474, while home-schooled students receive $2,000, delivered through a digital platform for tuition payments and educational purchases from approved vendors. This initiative faces potential constitutional challenges. Opponents argue using public funds for private, including religiously affiliated, schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and similar provisions in the Texas Constitution. While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld certain voucher programs federally when funds flow indirectly through parents, state constitutions often have stricter "Blaine Amendments" prohibiting public aid to religious institutions. The program also raises public policy debates about equity, resource diversion from public schools, and accountability for private entities receiving public funds. The legal framework surrounding ESAs in Texas will likely be tested in court. The Ten Commandments and the Establishment Clause The constitutionality of a Texas law requiring public schools to display posters of the Ten Commandments in every classroom will be directly addressed on January 20, as the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments. This case, alongside a similar challenge from Louisiana, places the court at the forefront of a national debate regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, dictating separation of church and state. The Texas law mandates a specific version of the Ten Commandments, reigniting controversies settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Stone v. Graham* (1980), which declared such displays unconstitutional. Advocates hope the current conservative Supreme Court might revisit and overturn this precedent, potentially through a "historical practices and understandings" test. Legal challenges are mounting. Two federal judges have already issued injunctions, blocking 25 school districts from complying with the mandate and declaring it unconstitutional. A class-action lawsuit by civil rights organizations seeks a statewide injunction. Concurrently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated lawsuits against Round Rock, Leander, and Galveston districts for alleged non-compliance. Central to arguments is the historical role of the Ten Commandments, with attorneys debating whether displays constitute a secular historical document or impermissible religious promotion. The outcome of these appeals could have profound implications for religious freedom in public education nationwide. State Intervention and Accountability in Public Schools Texas is currently undergoing a significant wave of state intervention in public education, with a record four school districts—Fort Worth, Beaumont, Connally, and Lake Worth—slated for state takeovers. This involves removing locally elected boards of trustees and replacing them with state-appointed boards of managers, a drastic measure for districts with chronic academic underperformance. State law permits this intervention when a single campus within a district receives five consecutive years of failing grades. A fifth district, Wichita Falls, has also met this threshold, though the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has yet to announce its decision. These actions raise questions about local democratic control versus state oversight, and due process rights of elected officials. These interventions follow a 2025 ruling by a Texas appeals court that sided with the TEA in lawsuits challenging the state’s school accountability system. This judicial validation allowed for the release of three years of accountability grades, subsequently triggering penalties for underperformance, including takeovers. Furthermore, the state Legislature in 2025 replaced the STAAR standardized test, the primary accountability instrument, with plans to implement three shorter tests annually starting in the 2026-27 school year. This shift introduces new complexities into academic performance measurement and criteria for state intervention. Examining the Impact of Expanded Vaccine Exemptions Since September, Texas has made it significantly easier for parents to obtain a vaccine exemption form, eliminating the previous requirement for a mailed copy in favor of a downloadable version. This policy change, streamlining the process for opting out of state-required immunizations for school attendance, will allow public health officials and educators to assess its impact on school vaccination rates throughout the year. The exemption form, valid for two years and requiring a notary’s signature, is utilized by parents seeking religious or conscientious exemptions for their children. This development occurs against increasing exemption requests. The Texas Department of State Health Services reported 17,197 requests for forms in July, a 36% increase from July 2023, and more than double the 2018 figure. The CDC reported in July that Texas leads the nation with over 25,000 kindergartners not fully vaccinated against measles, with the state’s measles kindergarten vaccination rate of 93.24% being its lowest since at least 2011. While upholding parental medical decision rights, public health experts emphasize high vaccination rates for "herd immunity." The coming year will reveal whether this shift further lowers vaccination rates, potentially increasing preventable disease outbreaks and sparking renewed debates over individual liberties and collective public health. State Funding for Flood Warning Systems and Governmental Liability Texas is actively bolstering communities’ ability to fund flood warning systems, particularly in the highly susceptible Hill Country region. Spurred by the devastating July 2025 Kerr County floods that claimed over 100 lives, state lawmakers allocated $50 million this year to expedite flood preparedness projects. Kerr County’s plan for an estimated $5 million system, incorporating sirens, rain gauges, flashing signs, and a public website, highlights urgent infrastructure needs. While the website is underway, officials anticipate state funding for remaining costs. To accelerate project implementation, the Texas Water Development Board has fast-tracked grants up to $1 million, with an additional $250,000 for eligible counties. The 30 counties in the governor’s disaster declaration can bypass certain approval steps. However, larger requests face prolonged review. While swift allocation is positive, experts caution that funding alone does not guarantee resolution; historical data indicates grants often cover only a fraction of total project costs. The critical question for 2026 remains the speed and adequacy of funding and approvals to ensure systems are operational before spring rains. Legally, state efforts could influence future governmental liability claims related to flood damages, particularly regarding allegations of negligence or failure to warn. Legal Challenges to the Dementia Research Fund Initiative A lawsuit continues to impede the activation of Texas's $3 billion Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT) fund, approved overwhelmingly by voters in November. The legal challenge, brought by three self-represented voters, alleges faulty voting machines invalidate the outcome for DPRIT. This unusual claim specifically targets DPRIT, despite voters approving 16 other propositions on the same ballot, all uncontested by these plaintiffs. This selectivity raises questions regarding legal standing and the precise basis for their grievance. Legal experts suggest the primary motivation is often opposition to increased government spending rather than genuine concern over election integrity. The plaintiffs' focus on DPRIT, involving a substantial initial $3 billion in taxpayer funding, supports this interpretation. This strategy mirrors similar lawsuits in 2021 and 2023 that delayed constitutional amendments. In the 2023 instance, lawsuits failed because state attorneys demonstrated plaintiffs had not properly served the Secretary of State, allowing Governor Abbott to certify results. The current lawsuit will test whether plaintiffs have rectified procedural deficiencies and can demonstrate legal grounds to overturn a clear voter mandate, setting precedent for future challenges.