← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB171
HB171, called the Anell Borrego Act, sets a 30-day minimum for several kinds of court-ordered chemical-dependency treatment, while retaining their 90-day maximum and an early-discharge exception.
Official caption: Relating to the certificate of medical examination for chemical dependency and the duration of court-ordered treatment for a person with a chemical dependency.
Official report lists House author(s): Guillen. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB171, called the Anell Borrego Act, sets a 30-day minimum for several kinds of court-ordered chemical-dependency treatment, while retaining their 90-day maximum and an early-discharge exception.
- The 30-to-90-day range applies to the initial commitment order, renewal orders, treatment used instead of jail or a fine for qualifying Class A or B misdemeanor defendants, and qualifying juvenile-court treatment placements.
- The minimum is not an unconditional requirement to remain confined for 30 days.
- The medical certificate must state the examining physician's opinion that the person has a chemical dependency and, because of it, is likely to cause serious harm to themselves or others, or meets the specified distress, deterioration and inability-to-make-an-informed-choice criteria.
- Existing safeguards and placement conditions still matter.
What does it do?
HB171, called the Anell Borrego Act, sets a 30-day minimum for several kinds of court-ordered chemical-dependency treatment, while retaining their 90-day maximum and an early-discharge exception. It also changes the medical certificate used in commitment proceedings. The law took effect September 1, 2025, and applies to treatment applications filed on or after that date; earlier applications remain governed by the former law. Final act, Sections 1 and 3–9
The 30-to-90-day range applies to the initial commitment order, renewal orders, treatment used instead of jail or a fine for qualifying Class A or B misdemeanor defendants, and qualifying juvenile-court treatment placements. Before HB171, those provisions stated a maximum of 90 days but no minimum. The law does not require every person with a substance-use problem to undergo treatment, nor does it make 90 days an absolute lifetime limit on orders that may be renewed. Final act, Sections 4–5 and 7 · Chapter 462, including renewal procedures
The minimum is not an unconditional requirement to remain confined for 30 days. A facility administrator may discharge a patient before the order expires when either the administrator or the treating physician determines that the patient no longer meets the criteria for court-ordered treatment. HB171 adds the treating physician as someone who may make that determination; the statutory authority to discharge remains with the administrator. Final act, Section 6
The medical certificate must state the examining physician’s opinion that the person has a chemical dependency and, because of it, is likely to cause serious harm to themselves or others, or meets the specified distress, deterioration and inability-to-make-an-informed-choice criteria. The previous wording asked for opinions about whether the person met those conditions. The law also updates references to the approving agency to the Health and Human Services Commission. Final act, Sections 2–3
Existing safeguards and placement conditions still matter. Ordinarily, a hearing requires certificates from two different examining physicians, with detailed reasons for their opinions. The initial-order and renewal provisions retain the admission-of-allegations or clear-and-convincing-evidence requirements. Qualifying misdemeanor and juvenile placements still require a facility that is available and agrees in writing to admit the person. The statute also retains an outpatient-treatment option on the proposed patient’s request when the judge makes the required best-interest finding. Sections 462.064, 462.069, 462.075 and 462.081
What changed along the way?
The filed bill proposed a 60-day minimum, not 30 days. That 60-day proposal remained in the House committee report and House-passed text. The certificate change, treating-physician discharge determination, 90-day maximum and prospective application rule were already part of those versions. Filed text · House report · House-passed text
The Senate committee substitute reduced the proposed minimum from 60 to 30 days in all four affected commitment provisions. The enrolled act retained that substitute’s substance. Thus, 60 days was a proposal that did not become law. The official amendment index lists no separate amendments; the change came through the Senate substitute. Senate substitute · Amendment index
The House passed HB171 April 25 by 117–20, with one present but not voting. The Senate passed it May 23 by 28–3. The House agreed to the Senate changes May 28 by 109–27, with two present but not voting. The governor signed it June 20. Vote certificates · Official history
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Patients and families could benefit from a longer planned treatment period in cases where a shorter order would otherwise have been issued. Explicitly allowing a treating physician’s determination to support early discharge may also help match confinement to whether legal treatment criteria still apply. Neither change proves that treatment outcomes will improve; the reviewed records do not quantify that result. Final act
Patients may face a longer period of court-ordered treatment and disruption to work, family and personal liberty, subject to the early-discharge exception. Facilities may need to provide more treatment days in some cases, and courts and clinicians must apply the revised requirements. The Legislative Budget Board anticipated no significant state or local fiscal implication and assumed associated state costs could be absorbed using existing resources. That estimate does not mean every patient’s or provider’s costs are zero, and HB171 does not itself fund new treatment capacity. Final fiscal note
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.