An appellate panel in Texas has concluded that the state attorney general presented no admissible evidence in a civil case to support claims that a Houston midwife performed illegal abortions, and it reversed a lower court's order that had shuttered three clinics she ran.
The Austin-based Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals found that a trial judge impermissibly relied on material from a related criminal prosecution of Maria Rojas, who last year became the first person charged with violating the state's near-total criminal ban on abortion. The panel said a filing from Rojas' criminal matter that established probable cause for her arrest should not have been admitted into the distinct civil proceeding brought by the attorney general's office.
Justice Scott Field, writing for the three-judge panel, wrote that "the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunctive relief." The ruling undoes an order that had forced closure of the three clinics where Rojas had practiced and managed staff. The appeals court decision applies to the civil lawsuit filed by the office of Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, which sought financial damages and an injunction to prevent Rojas from practicing.
Rojas, who has pleaded not guilty, remains under indictment on felony counts alleging the performance of abortions and the unauthorized practice of medicine. She was arrested in March 2025, according to court filings referenced in the proceedings. The state attorney general's office contends that Rojas employed other midwives at the clinics who misrepresented themselves as licensed medical professionals while providing treatment. Separately, eight other individuals who worked at Rojas' clinics were arrested last October, court records show.
Paxton's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the appeals court decision was issued.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Rojas in the civil matter, hailed the ruling as a legal victory but cautioned that it may be difficult for the midwife to resume operations at the closed clinics. Jenna Hudson of the group said that despite the appellate win, reopening the facilities where Rojas practiced will likely be nearly impossible. Hudson criticized the state's handling of the investigation and argued that the focus should be on ensuring pregnant women have access to needed health care rather than closing providers based on what she called weak evidence and a flawed investigation.
The civil and criminal cases are part of a broader legal contest over abortion rights in the United States, centered on efforts by Republican-led states to restrict the procedure and countervailing attempts to expand access to abortion-related services. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade removed the federal constitutional protection for abortion, a development cited in the context of the larger legal landscape that has allowed states to impose bans and other limits.
Legal posture and next steps
The appeals court decision affects only the civil action brought by the attorney general's office; the criminal prosecution of Maria Rojas continues. The court's ruling hinged on evidentiary rules governing the separation of materials from criminal proceedings and civil litigation and concluded the lower court improperly admitted a criminal probable cause filing into the civil record.
Because the civil injunction was vacated, the three clinics are no longer under a court order mandating closure as a result of that civil proceeding, though practical and regulatory obstacles to reopening remain according to Rojas' counsel.