Recently, an article was published that mispresented Texans for Lawsuit Reform, our mission, and our work to improve Texas courts. It’s important to set the record straight:

• It has always been the law in Texas that if a non-English-speaking commercial truck driver caused an accident because he couldn’t read the road signs, the jury would hear evidence of his inability to read English.
• Nothing in SB 39/HB 4688, introduced during the 2025 Regular Session and supported by TLR, would have prevented a jury from hearing this evidence or otherwise holding bad actors accountable.

Those parroting false talking points about SB 39/HB 4688 are doing the bidding of the personal injury trial lawyers — fearmongering lawyers who deal in misinformation to protect their wallets from badly needed reforms that will reduce their ability to mislead Texas jurors for their own financial gain.

What SB 39/HB 4688 Actually Would Have Done:

Critics claim SB 39/HB 4688 would have barred juries from hearing evidence about the English proficiency of a driver involved in a collision. That is false. SB 39/HB 4688 simply codifies a principle embedded in Texas law for decades—that evidence admitted in a trial must be relevant to the case at hand.

Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 require that evidence must relate to causation and not be admitted merely to prejudice jurors. SB 39/HB 4688 would have reinforced this existing standard. This should not be controversial.

Consider this scenario: If a truck driver was wearing a MAGA hat at the time of an accident in a liberal county, i.e., Travis County, a trial lawyer in the case might want to show a photo of the hat to prejudice the jury against that driver. But admitting the photo into evidence would be nothing more than an attempt to inflame jurors’ political emotions rather than focus the trial on the facts. SB 39/HB 4688 simply ensures Texas courts apply long-standing evidentiary rules to keep this kind of irrelevant, prejudicial material out of the courtroom.

This kind of thing – offering irrelevant evidence to try to unfairly prejudice jurors – is pursued by both plaintiff and defense lawyers. Whichever side does it, it isn’t right; and it does nothing to achieve a fair outcome in a trial. And achieving a fair outcome in Texas trials is all that TLR has ever supported.

We are proud of our record, proud of the reforms we’ve achieved, and proud to continue advancing policies that strengthen our economy, protect taxpayers, and keep Texas’s vibrant economy humming.

Bottom Line:

SB 39/HB 4688 would not have prevented juries from holding dangerous drivers accountable. Claims to the contrary are misinformation spread by those with a political and financial agenda. Texans deserve better than scare tactics from the billboard lawyer lobby.

SB 39/HB 4688 was about ensuring Texas courts remain fair, balanced and focused on evidence. The only people who benefit from admitting irrelevant evidence are plaintiff lawyers who want to keep Texas courtrooms operating as their personal ATMs.