On Friday, August 15, 2025, a Tarrant County judge issued a ruling that sent shockwaves through Texas political circles: Democratic activist Beto O’Rourke and his nonprofit, Powered by People, are now barred from sending money out of the state. The decision, handed down by 348th District Court Judge Megan Fahey, expands upon a restraining order first filed against O’Rourke on August 8, 2025, according to court documents reviewed by the Star-Telegram.
The legal wrangling at the heart of this case is anything but ordinary. At its core, the dispute centers on O’Rourke and his organization’s efforts to fund Texas Democrats who famously fled the state in an attempt to block the legislature from holding a vote on controversial redistricting legislation. This dramatic episode, widely covered by Texas media, saw Democratic lawmakers leave the state to deny the Republican-controlled legislature the quorum it needed to proceed with a vote many critics viewed as a bid to consolidate partisan power.
Judge Fahey’s ruling came just one day after O’Rourke’s lawyers appeared in a downtown Fort Worth courtroom, arguing that their client’s actions—and the nonprofit’s financial support—constitute a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment. The legal team contended that restricting the flow of funds amounted to stifling political expression, a cornerstone of American democracy. But the court was not persuaded, at least not for now.
In her order, Judge Fahey not only froze O’Rourke’s ability to send money out of Texas but also denied his motion to move the proceedings to El Paso County. O’Rourke’s attorneys had argued that El Paso was the proper venue because it is both his home and the base of operations for Powered by People. Nevertheless, the judge ruled that the case would remain in Tarrant County, keeping the legal spotlight firmly on the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex—a region that has become a political battleground in recent years.
The next chapter in this legal saga will unfold on September 2, 2025. That’s when Judge Fahey is scheduled to hold a hearing to determine whether to issue an injunction against O’Rourke and his nonprofit. The stakes are high: an injunction could further restrict O’Rourke’s political activities and potentially set a precedent for how activist organizations operate in the Lone Star State.
The reaction from Texas’s political establishment was swift and pointed. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican and frequent critic of O’Rourke, celebrated the court’s decision in no uncertain terms. “In Texas, lawless actions have consequences, and Beto’s finding that out the hard way,” Paxton said, according to the Star-Telegram. “His fraudulent attempt to pad the pockets of the rogue cowards abandoning Texas has been stopped, and now the court has rightly frozen his ability to continue to send money outside of Texas.” Paxton’s statement, brimming with political theater, highlights just how contentious and high-profile the dispute has become.
For O’Rourke and his supporters, the court’s freeze is a significant setback. The nonprofit Powered by People has been a cornerstone of O’Rourke’s post-congressional activism, channeling resources to Democratic causes across Texas. The organization’s efforts, including the funding of lawmakers who fled the state, have drawn both praise from progressives and sharp criticism from conservatives who accuse O’Rourke of undermining the legislative process.
Neither O’Rourke nor his attorneys could be reached for comment on Saturday, leaving many to speculate about their next legal move. But their courtroom arguments on Thursday made clear their position: that the movement of funds in support of political action is not just a logistical necessity but a protected form of speech. As O’Rourke’s legal team argued, “the funds are a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.” Whether this argument will sway Judge Fahey at the September hearing remains to be seen.
The broader context of this legal battle can’t be ignored. Political money, its movement, and its regulation have been flashpoints in American politics for decades. The Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 dramatically altered the landscape by affirming that political spending is a protected form of speech. Yet, as the current case in Texas demonstrates, state courts still have considerable leeway in interpreting the boundaries of that protection, especially when it comes to the intersection of state law, political maneuvering, and the flow of money across state lines.
The controversy over the Texas Democrats’ flight from the state last year was itself a vivid illustration of the country’s increasingly polarized political climate. For some, the lawmakers’ departure was a principled act of resistance against what they viewed as an undemocratic redistricting process. For others, it was a dereliction of duty and an affront to the rule of law. O’Rourke’s decision to support these lawmakers financially placed him—and his organization—squarely in the crosshairs of those seeking to enforce legislative discipline.
Paxton’s rhetoric, referring to the lawmakers as “rogue cowards,” is emblematic of the deep divisions that have characterized Texas politics in recent years. Meanwhile, O’Rourke’s camp frames their actions as a necessary defense of democratic norms and minority rights. The legal battle now underway is, in many ways, a microcosm of the larger struggle over the boundaries of protest, the role of money in politics, and the power of the courts to shape the rules of political engagement.
As the September 2 hearing approaches, both sides are gearing up for what could be a pivotal moment—not just for O’Rourke and Powered by People, but for activist organizations and political donors across the state. The outcome could influence how advocacy groups operate, how courts interpret the First Amendment in the context of political funding, and how Texas’s famously rough-and-tumble political landscape continues to evolve.
For now, the freeze remains in effect, and all eyes are on Tarrant County. Whether this case becomes a footnote in Texas political history or a landmark in the ongoing debate over free speech and political money will depend on the arguments and evidence presented in the weeks ahead. One thing is certain: the fight over who gets to fund political action in Texas is far from over.
