Legal Experts Say Abbott’s Attempt to Remove Rep. Gene Wu Is Without Precedent

Legal scholars say Governor Greg Abbott’s recent push to remove State Rep. Gene Wu, from office has little legal foundation and marks uncharted territory in Texas politics.

As reported by The Hill, Abbott filed a petition with the Texas Supreme Court seeking a writ of quo warranto—a rarely used legal tool to remove a public officer. The filing accuses Wu of accepting or soliciting a bribe to break quorum and abandoning his duties by leaving the state for an “indefinite period” during the current legislative standoff.

Notably, Wu is the only Democrat named in the petition, though other members of his party also left the state to block a vote on a mid-decade House redistricting map backed by former President Donald Trump.

Experts Question the Legal Basis

Quinn Yeargain, a constitutional law professor at Michigan State University, told KXAN the filing asks the court to accept Abbott’s arguments as “common sense” rather than on established precedent.

Abbott’s legal team argues that by leaving Texas to prevent the House from meeting quorum, Wu effectively abandoned his office and created a vacancy the governor could fill through a special election. But Yeargain noted that the Texas Government Code and past case law suggest legislators are not considered “public officers” in the way the filing claims, pointing to more than a century of legal interpretation to the contrary.

Yeargin also stressed the unprecedented nature of the governor’s request. He told KXAN that Abbott was unable to cite any relevant historical examples.

“The Texas Supreme Court is really serious about history. It’s very interested in historical practice and consistency with that practice,” Yeargain said. “The fact that Abbott isn’t able to point to … any historical analog in the slightest is jarring. It is stunning, because the scope of what he’s asking for is massive.”

Texas’ Constitution and House rules already provide mechanisms to address quorum breaking, including fines, warrants for absent lawmakers, and even expulsion by a two-thirds House vote. These remedies, the scholars noted, keep such matters within the legislative branch rather than inviting judicial intervention.

For now, Yeargain cautions that Abbott’s filing essentially asks the court to “step into a political dispute” and deliver a political outcome, something he says courts should avoid.