Fifteenth Court of Appeals Reverses Temporary Injunction Against Midwife and Clinics in State’s Abortion-Ban Suit

The decision

On July 23, 2026, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals reversed a temporary injunction that had barred Maria Margarita Rojas, a licensed midwife, and a group of associated clinics “from practicing medicine or performing abortions in violation of State law.” The court held that the trial court should not have admitted probable-cause affidavits from a related criminal case, and that without those affidavits the evidence did not reasonably support the State’s probable right to relief. The case was remanded to the trial court.

The opinion states that although the suit involves allegations of illegal abortions and the unlicensed practice of medicine, “this opinion does not decide whether those acts occurred.”

Background

According to the opinion, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit within the Office of the Attorney General investigated Rojas and the clinics in 2025, based on an anonymous e-mail complaint that abortions had been performed at one of the clinics. The State obtained an arrest warrant for Rojas and search warrants for the clinics. The warrants were supported by probable-cause affidavits from the lead investigator, Lieutenant Edward Wilkerson. Rojas was arrested, and the opinion states that the criminal proceeding against her remains pending.

Three days after the arrest, the Attorney General filed a civil suit in the name of the State in the 506th District Court in Waller County. The State sought civil penalties and temporary and permanent injunctive relief. It alleged that Rojas and the clinics violated the Human Life Protection Act by performing or attempting to perform abortions, and violated the Medical Practice Act by practicing medicine without a license.

At the hearing on the State’s application for a temporary injunction, the State offered the arrest warrants and the probable-cause affidavits, among other documents. Rojas and the clinics objected that the documents were not properly authenticated, that they were hearsay containing “layers of hearsay,” and that affidavits are inadmissible as a matter of law to prove entitlement to a temporary injunction. The State argued that the documents were admissible under the public-records exception to the hearsay rule, Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8).

The trial court admitted the warrants and affidavits, except for statements that witnesses had made to investigators. It also excluded the anonymous e-mail complaint. The State called one witness, Rojas, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to all substantive questions. Rojas and the clinics did not present evidence. The trial court granted the temporary injunction, and Rojas and the clinics brought an interlocutory appeal.

The court’s reasoning

The opinion, by Justice Scott K. Field, began with the standard for temporary injunctions. Quoting the Supreme Court of Texas, the court stated that “[a] temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and does not issue as a matter of right.” An applicant must plead and prove a cause of action, a probable right to the relief sought, and a probable, imminent and irreparable injury in the interim. The court reviewed the trial court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, under which a temporary injunction is an abuse of discretion if the evidence does not reasonably support a probable right of recovery or probable injury.

The affidavits

The court relied on Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Engineering Co., a 1968 decision of the Supreme Court of Texas. The opinion states: “A party seeking temporary injunctive relief must prove its probable right to relief and probable injury by presenting competent evidence at a hearing.” In the absence of an agreement between the parties, that proof may not be made by affidavit. The court also cited State v. Zurawski (Tex. 2024), in which the Supreme Court of Texas concluded that a trial court properly excluded affidavit evidence at a temporary-injunction hearing. With a “but see” citation, the court noted a 2005 Dallas Court of Appeals decision, Pierce v. State, which concluded that a trial court may issue a temporary injunction based on affidavit testimony admitted into evidence.

The court found that the State did not contend, and the record did not show, that the parties had agreed to allow the affidavits. Rojas and the clinics had objected to them. The court concluded: “As a result, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the probable-cause affidavits.”

The remaining evidence

Without the affidavits, the court held, the remaining evidence did not reasonably support the State’s allegations that abortions had been performed at the clinics, and so did not establish a probable right to relief on either statutory claim.

In a footnote, the court addressed Rojas’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment. It recognized that a factfinder in a civil case may draw a negative inference from a witness’s invocation of the privilege. But the court stated that, “[i]n the absence of other probative evidence, however, we cannot conclude that any adverse inferences that may be drawn from Rojas’s invocation of her privilege are sufficient, standing alone, to reasonably support a finding that Rojas and the Clinics performed abortions.”

In a second footnote, the court addressed the State’s argument on appeal that Rojas and the clinics violated the Medical Practice Act through conduct other than performing abortions, including that Rojas held herself out as a licensed physician. The court noted that the State’s live pleading alleged only: “By performing abortions without a physician’s license, Defendants have violated the [MPA].” Apart from the affidavits, the only evidence of other conduct was website printouts listing the clinics as providing “Doctor Examination” and “Procedures and Minor Surgeries.” The court concluded that the State had not met its burden on a Medical Practice Act theory based on other conduct.

Issues not decided

Because the evidence was insufficient, the court did not decide two other issues raised by Rojas and the clinics: whether the injunction complied with Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and whether the State has authority to obtain temporary injunctive relief for violations of the Human Life Protection Act and the Medical Practice Act.

Separate opinions

Chief Justice Scott A. Brister filed a concurring opinion on August 27, 2026. He wrote: “I fully join in the Court’s opinion, but add this brief concurring opinion to point out that the problem it highlights is one that only the Texas Supreme Court can correct.”

The concurrence described the two affidavits as single-spaced, 25-page documents sworn to by Lieutenant Wilkerson, one addressing whether abortions were being performed and the other addressing the practice of medicine without a license. Chief Justice Brister wrote that the affidavits “might be inadmissible in a criminal case,” but that in a civil case they would fall within the public-records exception of Rule 803(8). He noted that the trial court found no indication that the affidavits lacked trustworthiness. Because Rojas invoked her right to remain silent rather than deny or explain the allegations, he wrote that the record “more than adequately supports the State’s burden to show a probable right to relief and probable injury—all other things being equal.”

He continued: “But all other things are not equal.” The concurrence stated that Millwrights inferred its rule from the word “hearing” in Rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and that “[n]o statute or rule expressly says so, not in 1968 and not today.” Citing the Supreme Court of Texas’s 2005 decision in Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten on the trend away from full evidentiary hearings for pretrial matters, and listing other proceedings that may be decided on affidavits, he wrote that “the Court may wish to reconsider whether Millwrights is correct.” He added: “But it is not our role to make such a change.”

Status

The court reversed the temporary-injunction order and remanded the case to the trial court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The decision concerns only the temporary injunction. The State’s underlying claims were not resolved, and the opinion states that the related criminal proceeding against Rojas remains pending.

After the decision, the Attorney General’s office said it intends to petition the Supreme Court of Texas for review, according to CBS News.