A Texas transgender advocacy group plans to sue over mailers and texts circulating its resources before the November election, denying it authorized either campaign.
The Transgender Education Network of Texas dropped its push for presuit depositions, saying it has enough information to sue the Wyoming-based Texas Transgender Student Union and others.
Background
In October, just before the 2026 general election, text messages were sent to Texans statewide from two different phone numbers. The messages provided information about how recipients can obtain gender-affirming care in Texas and provided a “complete guide on bathrooms and beyond for trans kids at school.”
The messages then linked recipients to webpages on the transtexas.org website. This is the official website for the Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT), described as the “largest statewide transgender/gender non-conforming led and focused non-profit organization in Texas.”
In response to the messaging campaign, State Rep. Jeff Leach (R–Allen) called on Attorney General Ken Paxton to investigate TENT.
Days later, mailers began arriving in Texans’ mailboxes that were addressed to the “Students Of The [Surname] Family.” The mailers reportedly told students what to do if their parents didn’t support them, and suggested going out of state to obtain hormones or gender-affirming care.
The mailers allegedly used TENT’s branding and included a return address that was TENT’s but with one digit removed.
TENT asserted that it “did not author, authorize, fund, or distribute any of these materials,” but admitted that the text messages and mailers incorporated TENT’s genuine “public statements concerning gender-affirming care and school resources.”
The group deleted much of its website following the backlash it received from Texans who had received the messages, and was allegedly forced to “spend unbudgeted money to protect its staff and volunteers and suspended its programming.”
Litigation
On October 22, TENT filed a verified Rule 202 in a Travis County district court, seeking to uncover the parties responsible for the campaign before filing an official lawsuit. Despite public reporting that had identified a Wyoming LLC as matching the name printed on the mailers, TENT was reportedly uncertain whether that organization was indeed responsible.
TENT therefore sought a corporate-representative deposition of TTSU, the newly formed Wyoming LLC reportedly responsible, as well as the communications platform Infobip.
TTSU opposed the deposition, arguing that it would violate its First Amendment right to speak anonymously. It also sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.
The trial court granted TENT’s petition on October 27, ordering deposition. Judge Jan Soifer found that “the requested discovery may prevent a failure or delay of justice and that its likely benefits outweigh its burden.”
Days later, Infobip responded by identifying the originator of the messages as the Republican Women Caucus Fund and an individual named John Braun. Both the RWC Fund and Washington State Sen. John Braun denied involvement. TTSU then made clear that it is in fact the entity responsible for the mailers.
TTSU petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus relief, seeking a reversal of the trial court order requiring the deposition. The petition included an emergency motion for temporary relief, hoping to immediately pause the deposition process while the Court had time to consider the challenge.
On October 30, the Court issued an administrative stay blocking the scheduled deposition. Later that day, TENT filed a notice of nonsuit, stating that it had already succeeded in determining who was responsible for the messaging campaign, and could therefore proceed with a lawsuit.
Because TTSU’s motions with the Texas Supreme Court were no longer relevant, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss these requests on November 4. The Court granted this motion to dismiss on November 6.
TENT announced in a court filing how it plans to proceed with new litigation against TTSU.
“Although TENT was entitled to the deposition as ordered by the trial court, TENT nonsuited for two reasons. First, TENT now has sufficient information to bring a lawsuit against TTSU and other parties responsible for the Fraudulent Mailer and Messages, which is precisely the purpose Rule 202 [the rule governing pre-suit depositions] exists to serve,” reads the notice.
“Second, TENT is a small nonprofit, and it intends to spend its limited resources pursuing those responsible rather than litigating over presuit discovery it no longer needs.”
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: tips@texasscorecard.com.
