A controversial Texas Senate bill that sought to significantly curtail the autonomy of cities and counties has failed to advance, delivering a victory to advocates of local governance and progressive policy innovation. Senate Bill 2858 (SB 2858), introduced during the 89th Legislative Session, was effectively halted after being left pending in committee, unable to gain the traction necessary for passage.
Nicknamed the “Death Star 2.0” bill by critics—a reference to a similarly contentious law from 2023—SB 2858 aimed to reinforce state supremacy over local regulations. The legislation was widely viewed as a direct challenge to progressive initiatives in urban centers such as Austin, Dallas, and Houston, where local ordinances often exceed state minimums on issues like labor protections, environmental standards, and civil rights.
The Content of SB 2858
Proposed by Republican State Senator Brandon Creighton of Conroe, SB 2858 was designed to broaden the state’s authority in nullifying local regulations that “exceed or conflict with state law,” particularly in domains governed by the Election Code and Penal Code. It would have given the Texas attorney general unprecedented power to sue local governments, impose penalties, and potentially withhold their tax revenue if they were deemed non-compliant.
Proponents of the bill argued that it was necessary to ensure uniformity and prevent a patchwork of regulations that could confuse businesses and undermine state law. “This is about clarity and consistency across Texas,” Senator Creighton said when presenting the bill in the Senate. “Localities should not be allowed to operate in contradiction to the will of the Legislature.”
Opposition and Legislative Defeat
Despite its passage in the Texas Senate on April 30, 2025, by a 19–12 vote, the bill faced steep opposition in the House. It was referred to the House Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, where public testimony revealed widespread concern from municipal leaders, advocacy organizations, and legal scholars. Many warned that the bill would effectively strip localities of the authority to address the unique needs of their residents.
Austin Mayor Kirk Watson was among the vocal opponents, stating, “This legislation would kneecap cities that are trying to solve problems their constituents care about. Whether it’s public health measures, climate resilience, or workers’ rights, cities must retain the flexibility to lead.”
As of May 13, the bill remained pending in committee and was not scheduled for a vote before the legislative deadline, effectively ending its progress for the session.
Legal and Political Backdrop
The push behind SB 2858 followed ongoing legal battles over similar preemption laws in Texas. A related 2023 statute known as the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act (dubbed the original “Death Star” law) was ruled unconstitutional by a Travis County judge. The ruling, which the state is currently appealing, found that the law violated the Texas Constitution’s provisions on home-rule authority.
This judicial backdrop cast a long shadow over SB 2858, with opponents arguing it mirrored many of the same legal vulnerabilities. Civil rights and legal organizations warned that the bill, if enacted, would likely face immediate constitutional challenges.
Implications for Local Governance
The failure of SB 2858 marks a significant win for local governments and progressive policymakers in Texas. It preserves the legal space for municipalities to pursue forward-thinking policies on issues ranging from paid sick leave to environmental sustainability—areas where state law often provides only a baseline.
“This sends a strong message that local democracy matters,” said Ana Gonzalez of the Texas AFL-CIO. “Communities should be able to make decisions for themselves, especially when state leaders refuse to act.”
The Road Ahead
Though the bill’s failure is a relief for its critics, the broader conflict over local versus state authority in Texas is far from over. Lawmakers are expected to revisit similar proposals in future sessions, particularly as ideological divides between the state government and Texas’s largest cities continue to widen.
For now, however, local leaders can continue shaping policies tailored to their communities without fear of immediate state retribution—a reprieve that many view as essential to responsive and inclusive governance.
