Federal judge blocks S.B. 12 enforcement in Plano ISD and two others

A student who said they left public school because their Gender and Sexuality Alliance club shut down and “the fact that their affirming name and pronouns will no longer be respected by teachers and staff” was central to a federal judge’s decision on Feb. 20 to freeze parts of Texas’s S.B. 12 in three large districts, the court record and plaintiffs’ filings show. U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Plano ISD, Houston ISD and Katy ISD from enforcing specific provisions of the law while the lawsuit proceeds.

The injunction bars the three districts from applying four categories of restrictions in S.B. 12: bans on student clubs based on sexual orientation or gender identity, prohibitions on “diversity, equity and inclusion duties,” limits on employee assistance with students’ “social transitioning,” and constraints on instruction, guidance or activities related to sexual orientation or gender identity. The ACLU of Texas’s court filing quoted the order as saying districts are “enjoined from implementing policies pursuant to Sections 3, 7, 24, and 27 of S.B. 12, or otherwise enforcing those provisions, during the pendency of this litigation.”

Plaintiffs in the case include a Plano ISD teacher, two students, a youth advocacy group and a coalition of LGBTQ clubs, backed by Texas AFT, the Transgender Law Center, the ACLU of Texas and the Baker McKenzie law firm, according to court papers and reporting on the litigation. The complaint, filed in August 2025, seeks to block the statute statewide; plaintiffs argued S.B. 12 violates the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act.

Court documents presented concrete harms: at least one Plano GSA disbanded ahead of S.B. 12’s Sept. 1, 2025 effective date, and a student chose homeschooling citing the club shutdown and anticipated loss of staff respect for names and pronouns. Texas AFT told the court it had received a “high volume of inquiries” from members about the law’s meaning and was worried about its “harsh professional consequences,” material that helped the plaintiffs secure preliminary relief.

Judge Eskridge’s written order criticized the three districts’ defense posture, noting that “Houston, Katy, and Plano ISDs explain none of it. Nor do they address any facts or present any legal rationale opposing entry of the requested preliminary injunction.” Eskridge, a 2019 nominee to the federal bench, entered the injunction on Feb. 20, 2026 and issued an opinion explaining his reasoning, court sources report.

The court limited the injunction to the three named districts after plaintiffs sought statewide relief; the order noted the Texas Education Agency commissioner had not yet taken enforcement action and the commissioner was dismissed as a defendant for now. The opinion also advised that all Texas school districts “remain obligated to comply first and foremost with federal law, even when doing so requires disregarding contrary state directives.”

One outlet styled the litigation as GSA v. Morath and referenced additional suits such as Cribbs Ringer v. Comal ISD and an earlier preliminary order by another judge; those broader litigation claims have not been corroborated in the ACLU of Texas filings or other primary court documents cited in the injunction. The preliminary injunction remains in effect while the case proceeds, leaving the scope of S.B. 12 enforcement in Plano, Houston and Katy counties paused until the courts reach a final decision.