Inflation. That inescapable, invisible robber, snatching up more and more of your hard-earned dollars and making it tougher to buy the things your family needs and wants. Some blame it on supply chain issues. Some on societal, political and economic factors. But there’s one major component of inflation that few have focused on, and unlike other factors, we can take steps to address it right here in the Lone Star State: the cost of litigation—also known as the Tort Tax. Every two years, the Institute for Legal Reform releases a nationwide study analyzing the cost of America’s tort system—that is, how much litigation costs Americans through court costs, increased insurance premiums and lawsuit awards. The study estimates that U.S. tort costs in 2022 (the most recent year data was available) equate to $4,207 per household. Texas households were worse off than the national average, on the hook for $4,594 due to the cost of litigation, up from $3,904 in 2020. But the bad news doesn’t stop there. Between 2016 and 2022, tort costs at the national level rose an average of 7.1 percent per year—far faster than average annual inflation (3.4 percent) and average annual GDP growth (5.4 percent). You

By Mark McCaig, publisher of The Texas Voice Despite a spending spree by George Soros and other liberal donors who sought to flip Texas to the Democrats, voters in the Lone Star State crushed leftists’ dreams on election night by delivering significant victories for Republicans up and down the ballot. Despite minimal help from the Republican Party of Texas and donors that were actively engaged in Primary Election fights, several Political Action Committees and donors opened their pocketbooks in a major way to help Republican candidates succeed. Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) and its sister organization, the Judicial Fairness PAC, spent far more than any other groups to elect Republicans to the legislative and judicial branches of the Texas government in the 2024 general election. With most of its spending focused on battleground legislative races, TLR spent more than $8.5 million to assist Republicans in the general election. The group was the largest donor in the general election to the three Republican candidates who flipped legislative seats that were held by Democrats last session- Adam Hinojosa (Senate District 27), Denise Villalobos (House District 34), and Don McLaughlin (House District 80). TLR donated $600,000 to Hinojosa’s campaign, over $200,000 to Villalobos’ campaign, and

Thanks to TLRPAC’s efforts, the 2025 legislative session will see expanded conservative majorities in the Texas House and Senate. And thanks to our companion organization, Judicial Fairness PAC, 2024 was the most consequential judicial election in almost four decades. The Texas House of Representatives TLRPAC endorsed Republicans in 68 contested House races, all of whom won decisively. Republicans won the most competitive races in the state, including victories in South Texas by Don McLaughlin and Denise Villalobos, both of whom ran in open seats long held by Democrats. With these victories, Republican continue to make inroads with South Texas voters. Villalobos joins Hispanic Republicans Mano DeAyala, Janie Lopez, John Lujan, Ryan Guillen and J.M. Lozano in the House. TLRPAC topped all other contributors to Texas House Republican candidates, leading to victories in the eight most contested races against Democrats. The House freshman class features 26 Republicans, including nine women: Denise Villalobos, Janis Holt, Hillary Hickland, Helen Kerwin, Keresa Richardson, Shelley Luther, Caroline Fairly, Joanne Shofner and Katrina Pierson. The composition of the House in 2025 will be 88 Republicans and 62 Democrats, compared to 86 Republicans and 64 Democrats in 2023. The Texas Senate TLRPAC endorsed Republicans in eight contested

By now, you’re probably aware that Texas leads the nation in nuclear jury verdicts over $10 million, either because you’ve seen the statistics, experienced rising insurance costs or been on the receiving end of an inflated verdict or settlement. It’s clear that Texas’ litigation environment has shifted from protecting legitimately injured Texans to targeting all job creators, impacting every industry in our economy. But what you may not know is how we got here, after 30 years of common-sense lawsuit reforms. It’s a relatively simple scheme. First, personal injury lawyers are collaborating with healthcare providers to inflate the medical bills presented to prove an injury and establish damages in lawsuits.  Here’s how it works: The attorneys have built networks of healthcare providers who agree to work on a contingency fee, over-diagnosing, over-treating and over-billing the lawyers’ clients with the understanding that they will be paid from the lawsuit’s settlement or judgment. The more the providers inflate the value of the case, the more money they make at the end. The providers bill tens of thousands for their services at rates far above the market price. Even if the patient has health insurance, the bills are never submitted for payment. At

Where do one person’s constitutional rights end and another’s begin? That’s the fundamental question the Legislature must answer as it looks to fix Texas’ dysfunctional anti-SLAPP statute, also known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). As a refresher, the TCPA was passed in 2011 to protect two constitutional rights: freedom of speech and access to the courts. The Legislature specifically wanted to ensure the TCPA was used only in First Amendment cases and went so far as to list 12 kinds of cases in the statute that it is not supposed to apply to.   So why, then, has the TCPA been used in: cases for fraud and barratry a water well contamination suit a dispute between neighbors over a fence defamation claims in an employment dispute suits about social media discussions between horse breeders Because the statute itself is flawed. Here’s how it is supposed to work: John sues Jane in response to exercising her First Amendment rights. Jane moves to dismiss the lawsuit under the TCPA, which essentially freezes the lawsuit until the court rules on the motion. A hearing must be held within 60 days after the motion is filed, and the court has to rule within

When criminal activity has created a blight on a community, law enforcement and local officials should use every tool at their disposal to address the issue. El Paso County’s recent common nuisance action against the Gateway Hotel—which has become a hotbed of crime in recent years—is the perfect case study. According to the county’s petition to abate the nuisance, law enforcement has been called to the Gateway Hotel 693 times in the last two years. Surveillance footage shows evidence of gunfire, assaults and disorderly conduct. A police report lists suspected prostitution and notes that “continuous criminal activity” has increased with the presence at the hotel of members of a notoriously violent Venezuelan street gang.  As a reminder, the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC) defines 28 specific actions as common nuisances, including many of the criminal activities occurring at the Gateway Hotel. El Paso’s petition specifically lists 53 violations of the CPRC, including delivery, possession, or use of a controlled substance; aggravated assault; criminal trespass; public intoxication and indecency with a child, among many others. The El Paso County attorney is correct to pursue this cause of action. Texas law provides for common nuisance actions to abate the nuisance—in

TLR is a proud member of the newly-launched Lone Star Economic Alliance (LSEA), a coalition of businesses of all sizes from industries and cities across the state fighting to restore transparency to Texas courtrooms and ensure the legal system operates fairly. Virtually every employer in Texas—from family-owned grocers and landscaping companies to oil and gas providers—has the potential to be involved in an accident that can evolve into a company-threatening lawsuit. Companies want to do the right thing when someone is injured due to the actions of their employees. At the same time, no company wants to be held ransom in a lawsuit by a person who was not injured or who caused his own injury. The litigation environment in Texas has shifted from protecting legitimately injured Texans to targeting all job creators, impacting every industry and the entire Texas economy.  Deceptive plaintiff lawyer tactics—like hugely inflated medical bills—have led to an explosion of unjustifiable nuclear verdicts and high-dollar settlements in personal injury lawsuits against Texas job creators. As a result, insurance companies are afraid to go to court in Texas. Instead, they settle cases and pass the increased costs through to the companies they insure.  Insurance is already the

Last week, the Texas Supreme Court decided to take up a nuclear personal injury case that resulted in a $92 million judgment against trucking company Werner Enterprises.  TLR filed an amicus brief in this case urging the court to uphold what’s called the Admission Rule, a longstanding legal principle that allows a company defendant to simplify a lawsuit by taking legal responsibility for the actions of its employee.  In this case, a pickup truck was driving down an icy stretch of I-20 near Odessa when it hit a patch of black ice and skidded across a 42-foot grassy median into oncoming traffic, where it hit Werner’s truck head on. Werner’s truck was going 50 miles per hour—well under the speed limit—immediately tried to stop, never lost control and violated no traffic laws. Unfortunately, the resulting accident led to the death and permanent injuries of two children in the pickup. As the state trooper who investigated the collision noted in his report, it was “truly an accident,” Werner’s driver “didn’t do anything wrong” and there was nothing “he could have done to avoid the collision.” At trial, the driver of the pickup that lost control made statements alluding to his own

She Took the Midnight Train Going Anywhere to the Delaware Chancery Court Imagine you and your longtime business partner are entering a new phase of your partnership and create a new entity to manage it. Because you’re both equal shareholders in this entity, you must both agree on big decisions, from major expenses to hiring and firing staff.  But you and your partner don’t agree. Actually, you seriously disagree on how to run this business, butting heads time and again and bringing the entire operation to a grinding halt over even the most routine business activities. Bills go unpaid, morale is in the tank and your reputation in the industry is starting to suffer. Now imagine that partnership is 80’s rock band Journey, and you have the latest high-profile case out of the Delaware Chancery Court. And another example of the kinds of complex business disputes that Texas’ new specialized business court was created to handle. In this case, the band’s keyboardist brought the action against its guitarist, asking the court to appoint a neutral third party as a tie-breaking director on the board of Freedom 2020, the entity Journey created to manage its latest world tour. According to the

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which was created by the Legislature last session and officially comes online September 1.  The court—whose inaugural judges were appointed by Gov. Abbott in June and will be accountable to voters statewide in the 2026 elections—has jurisdiction over administrative and constitutional appeals involving the state and state agencies, as well as appeals from the newly created specialized business court. The legal challenge arose in one such case involving Dallas County, which sued the state over an issue with custody of criminal defendants who have been deemed incompetent to stand trial.  As intended with the creation of the new court, the state attempted to preemptively move the case to the Fifteenth Court ahead of its launch date, which led Dallas County to file an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals. That appeal was elevated to the Texas Supreme Court. TLR filed an amicus brief in this case, noting that the Legislature specifically vested the Texas Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to resolve any constitutional questions about the Fifteenth Court, and urging SCOTX to resolve those issues ahead of the September 1 launch