2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB45

HB45 creates a procedure directing the Texas attorney general to prosecute certain human-trafficking cases when the local prosecutor has not acted after 180 days.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the duty of the attorney general to represent the state in the prosecution of the criminal offense of trafficking of persons.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Hull, Noble, Leach, Metcalf, Patterson. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

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.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB45 creates a procedure directing the Texas attorney general to prosecute certain human-trafficking cases when the local prosecutor has not acted after 180 days. It changes who may prosecute, not the elements or penalties of the trafficking offenses. Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025. Its changes apply only to offenses committed on or after that date; if any element occurred earlier, prior law applies. Final law; official history.

The procedure covers offenses under Penal Code Chapter 20A, including trafficking of persons and continuous trafficking. When a law-enforcement agency sends a local prosecutor a report identifying a person and stating probable cause for such an offense, it must simultaneously send the attorney general a copy. A report or probable-cause finding is not a finding of guilt. The statute directs the attorney general to represent the state when that report has been submitted, 180 days have elapsed, and the local prosecutor has not taken “prosecutorial action to prosecute the offense.” HB45 does not define that phrase as a simple checklist or say that every investigation must end in charges. Final law, Sections 2–3.

If a prosecution is already pending and those conditions are satisfied, the attorney general must file a notice of appearance and give the local prosecutor a copy. Otherwise, the attorney general must notify the local prosecutor of the intent to represent the state. The local prosecutor may object in the court where the prosecution is pending. A hearing is required within 30 days after that motion is filed. The court must decide whether the local prosecutor has taken prosecutorial action; if not, the statute requires an order placing the attorney general in the prosecution. The local prosecutor’s objection is not itself a veto. Final law, Section 2.

The law allows an appeal from an order granting or denying that objection before the case is finished. Section 51.014(b)’s existing rule stays the start of trial during an appeal under subsection (a), with stated exceptions; the new trafficking provision is not among the categories that automatically stay all other proceedings. HB45 does not create a blanket pause of every investigation or court activity. Final law, Section 1; Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014.

The mandatory initial report copy is different from later requests for nonpublic investigative information. For those later requests, the attorney general must already be representing the state under the new prosecution provision, or the local prosecutor must agree to provide the information. Final law, Section 2.

Constitutional limits remain important. In *State v. Stephens*, the Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a different statute authorizing independent attorney-general prosecution of election crimes. It held that local criminal prosecution belongs to the judicial branch and that attorney-general assistance ordinarily requires the local prosecutor’s request and consent. HB45 uses a trafficking-specific waiting period, notices, objections and mandatory wording, but those differences are not a court ruling that HB45 satisfies the Constitution. This explanation describes the enacted procedure; it does not declare HB45 either upheld or struck down. Stephens majority opinion; case docket, including rehearing denial; Texas Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Article IV, Section 22, and Article V, Section 21.

What changed along the way?

The filed bill used a six-month waiting period and lacked the final objection, notice and appeal procedures. The House committee substitute added a matching Penal Code provision and changed “shall prosecute” to “shall represent the state in the prosecution.” These were committee changes, not floor amendments. Filed text; House substitute; version index.

All four indexed floor amendments were checked:

  • Hull, adopted on House second reading: narrowed requested information to information not publicly available, replaced “initiated proceedings” with “taken prosecutorial action,” and added a local objection with a court determination of who would prosecute. The linked H21 file contains the wrong amendment; the official House Journal supplies Hull’s actual text.
  • Moody, rejected 64–74: would have required local consent and made the attorney general’s role permissive and concurrent. That proposal is not the enacted rule.
  • Vasut, adopted on House third reading: replaced the court’s broader choice with a mandatory attorney-general order if the local prosecutor had not taken prosecutorial action. That change survived.
  • Huffman, adopted in the Senate: replaced six months with 180 days, restricted later nonpublic-information requests, added notices and the 30-day objection hearing, specified the court for objections, and added the appeal provision. Those changes survived in the final law.

The House accepted the Senate amendments; there was no conference report. Amendment index; Hull and Moody texts, House Journal printed pages 2623–2624; Vasut amendment; Huffman amendment; House-passed text; Senate committee printing.

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?

Trafficking survivors and investigating agencies may gain another prosecution route when a local case has not advanced. That is a possible benefit, not a guarantee of charges, conviction or victim compensation. Local prosecutors face reporting and information-sharing duties and potentially hearings and appeals over who controls a case. Defendants may face prosecution through the new route, but HB45 does not remove the state’s burden to prove an offense or itself increase a sentence.

The final Legislative Budget Board fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local-government fiscal effect, assuming costs can be absorbed with existing resources. It provides no dollar-by-year estimate and makes no appropriation. That assumption does not mean staff time, litigation or individual defense costs are zero. Final fiscal note, May 19, 2025.

Review boundary: final text, earlier versions, all four floor amendments, fiscal notes, relevant prior statutes and the complete *Stephens* majority and rehearing materials were checked. Targeted searches on October 31, 2026 did not identify an HB45-specific court decision to cite; those searches were not an exhaustive docket audit and do not establish that no litigation exists. Constitutional validity, case-specific meaning of “prosecutorial action,” and actual prosecution outcomes are not treated as settled by passage of the bill.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.