Background
The Texas Attorney General’s Office, acting on behalf of the State, sought a temporary injunction against Maria Rojas, a licensed midwife, and her associated clinics. The State alleged that Rojas and the clinics were performing illegal abortions in violation of the Texas Human Life Protection Act and practicing medicine without a license in violation of the Texas Medical Practice Act. These civil allegations followed a criminal investigation and Rojas’s arrest on related charges.
At a hearing for the temporary injunction, the State’s primary evidence consisted of probable-cause affidavits from the separate criminal case. Over objections from Rojas’s counsel, the trial court admitted these affidavits into evidence. The State also called Rojas as a witness, but she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to all substantive questions. The trial court subsequently granted the temporary injunction, ordering Rojas and the clinics to stop “practicing medicine or performing abortions in violation of State law.” Rojas and the clinics appealed the order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order and dissolved the temporary injunction. The court’s decision did not address the merits of the allegations but focused on a critical procedural error. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the probable-cause affidavits from the criminal case as evidence for the temporary injunction.
Citing long-standing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Eng’g Co.*), the court reiterated the rule that affidavits cannot be used as evidence to support a temporary injunction unless the parties agree. Here, Rojas and the clinics explicitly objected to their admission. Without the affidavits, the court found the remaining evidence—primarily the adverse inference from Rojas invoking her Fifth Amendment rights—was insufficient on its own to establish the State’s “probable right to the relief sought.” Because the State failed to present competent evidence to meet its burden, the temporary injunction was improperly granted.
Key Takeaways
- In Texas, a temporary injunction cannot be granted based on affidavit evidence unless all parties have agreed to its use.
- Evidence such as probable-cause affidavits from a related criminal case is inadmissible at a civil temporary injunction hearing if a party objects.
- While a factfinder in a civil case may draw a negative inference from a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment, that inference alone is not sufficient to support a temporary injunction without other probative evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of Texas civil procedure: obtaining a temporary injunction, an “extraordinary remedy,” requires competent evidence presented at a hearing, not just written statements made in a different context. It clarifies that the State cannot use procedural shortcuts, like relying on affidavits from a parallel criminal case, to meet its evidentiary burden in a civil injunction suit. The ruling protects individuals and businesses from being deprived of their rights or livelihood based on evidence that has not been properly tested in court, underscoring the high bar required to secure pre-trial injunctive relief, even when the underlying allegations are serious.