Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued the Texas Department of Public Safety, arguing that a long-standing rule banning religious advertising in the state’s driver handbook violates constitutional free speech protections.
The lawsuit, filed this week in Travis County district court, challenges a DPS policy adopted in 2000 that prohibits religious, political and other “controversial” advertisements in the Texas Driver Handbook and related publications. Paxton argues the rule unlawfully discriminates against religious speech by allowing some forms of advertising while barring religious organizations outright.
“Texas cannot single out religious speech for exclusion,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. He contends the policy violates both the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and the Texas Constitution.
The Texas Driver Handbook is a widely distributed publication used by millions of Texans seeking driver licenses. While DPS officials have said the agency does not currently sell advertising in the handbook, Paxton’s lawsuit focuses on the existence of the rule itself, arguing it prevents religious groups from participating if advertising were ever permitted.
The DPS policy also restricts ads related to politics, alcohol, tobacco and gambling. Paxton’s suit claims the religious advertising ban amounts to viewpoint discrimination and cites prior federal court rulings that struck down similar restrictions as unconstitutional.
In the filing, Paxton argues that continued enforcement of the rule causes ongoing harm by denying religious organizations equal access to government-created forums for speech.
DPS officials have not publicly commented on the lawsuit.
The legal challenge comes as Paxton campaigns in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, where he is seeking to unseat incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the March 2026 election. Paxton has frequently made religious liberty issues a central theme of his political and legal agenda.
A judge will now decide whether the DPS policy can remain in place or must be revised or struck down. No timeline has been set for a ruling.