About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2026 Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. 1 (2026)

handle is hein.sag/sagtx0228 and id is 1 raw text is: January 19, 2026 Opinion No. KP-0505 Re: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Texas The worth of a person cannot be measured by race, sex, or any other immutable feature bestowed at birth-beyond the reach of individual choice. Rather, people are to be judged by the quality of their character and skill they have worked to obtain. Ours is a merit-based society. This moral imperative preexists any political or legal document. Still, the concept is engrained within each of the sovereign charters under which Texans conduct all affairs: the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. Over the course of decades, however, some people have become obsessed with the notion that race and sex are to shape every opportunity in public and private life. Under the tacit guise of sociological reparations, this broken worldview-better known as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion or DEI, under which immutable traits have become the currency of advancement-has invaded academia, the halls of government, and virtually every corner of private industry. But no one can be freed by the hand of injustice that once bound them. To make matters worse, when given an opportunity to confront DEI in the context of higher education, then-Attorney General Cornyn not only declined to give an answer but withdrew the only actionable guidance on the topic. See generally Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0107 (1999) (withdrawing Tex. Att'y Gen. LO-97-001 (1997)). Adding insult to injury, he deferred to a pending Fifth Circuit court decision without any guidelines with which to navigate the legal morass that is DEI. Id. This was as wrong then as it is now, and the opinion is overruled.' As the chief law officer of the State with solemn duties involving at all times the exercise of broad judgment and discretion, Webster v. Comm'nfor Law. Discipline, 704 S.W.3d 478, 495 (Tex. 2024) (citation omitted), the Attorney General is dutybound to clarify the current state of the law and right the wrongs of prior administrations. Doing so compels that we observe the obvious: DEI has no place in our Republic, and the time for evaluating any candidate, employee, or recipient of government largesse based on their skin color or sex has come to an end. We therefore begin by detailing the arc of our nation's commitment to first principles, see infra Part I, and then analyze the extent to which DEI has unlawfully invaded both the public and private sectors alike, see infra Parts II-III (addressing each, respectively). 1 For similar reasons, Attorney General Opinions JC-0315 (2000), DM-226 (1993), and DM-184 (1992) are also overruled to the extent inconsistent with this opinion. See infra Part II.A.