The Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling prohibiting Harris County from starting a guaranteed income program that was being disputed by Attorney General Ken Paxton. This decision came after Houston County Judge Ursula Hall previously ruled that the Uplift Harris program, which provides monthly stipends to low-income residents, was not unconstitutional. The program, which had been approved by the Harris County Commissioners Court, would give participating households $500 per month for 18 months. Paxton filed a lawsuit seeking to block the program from making payments, which the Supreme Court granted.
In response to the court’s ruling, UpTogether, an organization focused on investing in historically undervalued communities, criticized the decision as “shameful.” UpTogether CEO Jesús Gerena said that blocking Uplift Harris denies thousands of Texas residents facing financial hardship an opportunity for financial stability. Despite criticism, Paxton continues to argue that the program is unconstitutional and an abuse of taxpayer money. Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo expressed disappointment at the ruling, saying that migrants living in poverty benefit everyone and that the state is attempting to bully the county.
Harris County has until April 29 to respond to the emergency motion for relief filed with the Texas Supreme Court. The program, which began on Jan. 12 and already has 1,924 applicants enrolled, has been put on hold pending further orders from the court. Paxton sees the ruling as a victory in defending the state’s constitution and preventing what he considers an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds. Hidalgo emphasized her commitment to fighting for the program and supporting families in need, despite the challenges presented by the Attorney General’s opposition.
The legal battle over the guaranteed income program highlights the tension between Harris County officials seeking to provide support for low-income residents and Texas state authorities questioning the constitutionality of such initiatives. The decision of the Texas Supreme Court to block the program’s payments has sparked controversy and criticism, with organizations like UpTogether condemning the ruling as detrimental to vulnerable communities. As the dispute continues, the fate of Uplift Harris remains uncertain, leaving many families relying on the program in a state of limbo and uncertainty about their financial stability. The ongoing conflict underscores broader debates about social welfare programs and the role of government in addressing poverty and inequality in Texas.
