CAIR’s Texas chapters have sued Governor Greg Abbott after he labeled the group and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorists and moved to block land purchases, saying the proclamation violates constitutional protections and state law. The dispute mixes free speech and national-security rhetoric into a legal fight that puts civil rights groups and state authority on a collision course in Texas.
Two CAIR chapters in Texas filed a federal lawsuit to overturn Abbott’s proclamation, arguing the governor overstepped his authority and trampled constitutional guarantees. “This attempt to punish the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization simply because Governor Abbott disagrees with its views is not only contrary to the United States Constitution, but finds no support in any Texas law,” the group said in its lawsuit. The legal filing frames the fight as a First Amendment and due process matter, not just a policy spat.
CAIR points out it began in 1994 and now runs 25 chapters across the country, with a modest Texas footprint that includes eight employees and two contractors. That detail is meant to show CAIR’s local presence is small compared with the sweeping action taken against it. The organization argues the governor’s move targets advocacy, not criminal behavior.
“CAIR-Texas and the Texas Muslim community are standing up for our constitutional rights by directly confronting Greg Abbott’s lawless attack on our civil rights,” CAIR-Texas said in a statement.
“We are not and will not be intimidated by smear campaigns launched by Israel First politicians like Mr. Abbott. Mr. Abbott is defaming us and other American Muslims because we are effective advocates for justice here and abroad. We plan to continue exercising our constitutional rights, defending civil rights, and speaking truth to power, whether in defense of free speech, religious freedom and racial equality here in Texas or in defense of human rights abroad.”
Abbott’s proclamation tagged the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as “terrorist” affiliates, a label federal agencies have not applied to either group. Supporters of the governor say the move is a defensive step to protect state interests and stop what they see as foreign influence in local affairs. Critics say branding advocacy groups as terrorists without federal backing sets a dangerous precedent.
The order also invokes a new Texas statute that restricts land purchases tied to foreign adversaries, and Abbott’s team used that authority to try to block CAIR from buying property in the state. Conservatives pushing the statute frame it as sensible protection against foreign meddling in strategic land and infrastructure. Opponents respond that the law can be wielded to shut down lawful civic activity.
CAIR’s lawsuit alleges Abbott leaned on “inflammatory statements with no basis in fact,” claiming officials cherry-picked remarks by affiliates to paint the group as sympathetic to terrorism. The legal challenge is structured to force courts to examine whether political posture can justify administrative sanctions. That raises constitutional questions about who gets to decide when speech crosses into prohibited territory.
“The lawsuit we have filed today is our first step towards defeating Governor Abbott again so that our nation protects free speech and due process for all Americans,” CAIR Litigation Director and General Counsel Lena Masri said in a statement.
“No civil rights organizations are safe if a governor can baselessly and unilaterally declare any of them terrorist groups, ban them from buying land, and threaten them with closure. We have beaten Greg Abbott’s attacks on the First Amendment before, and God willing, we will do it again now.”
The Muslim Legal Fund of America joined the challenge, with attorney Charlie Swift warning of due process erosion. “Mr. Abbott’s unconstitutional proclamation undermines the very foundational notions of due process that our system depends upon and it must not stand,” said Muslim Legal Fund of America attorney Charlie Swift. Civil liberties groups say this case will test how far a state can go when it claims security and sovereignty concerns.
Earlier this year, GOP officials in Texas scrutinized a proposed Muslim-centered community near a major Dallas mosque, opening inspections and investigations tied to the East Plano Islamic Center. State leaders alleged the project might be creating an isolated enclave or implementing foreign legal norms, accusations the development’s representatives rejected as baseless and misleading. The Justice Department later closed its civil rights probe into that community without bringing charges.
Expect the courts to wrestle with competing messages: a governor asserting protective authority and civil rights groups defending open advocacy. The outcome will reshape the limits of state power over organizations engaged in public debate and could influence similar fights nationwide.
