Texas appeals court hears challenge to injunction that closed Houston-area clinics tied to abortion allegations

Case centers on midwife-run clinic network, state enforcement authority, and standards for keeping facilities closed

A Texas appeals court is weighing whether a civil injunction that shut down a Houston-area network of clinics should remain in place while related criminal allegations proceed. The dispute stems from a state enforcement action targeting clinics associated with licensed midwife Maria Margarita Rojas, whose facilities were ordered to stop providing medical services after state authorities accused the network of unlawful abortion activity and the unlicensed practice of medicine.

The clinics affected by court orders have been identified in court filings and public notices as operating in the Houston region, including locations in Waller County and suburban areas such as Cypress and Spring. The state’s civil case resulted first in a temporary restraining order and later in a temporary injunction, measures that prevent the clinics and associated staff from providing medical services while the lawsuit continues.

What the state alleges

The state contends the clinics were involved in conduct barred under Texas’ near-total abortion restrictions and also operated outside lawful medical licensing requirements. The enforcement action has been framed by state officials as aimed at stopping illegal abortions and preventing medical services from being performed by individuals without appropriate credentials.

Separate from the civil case, Rojas and other individuals connected to the clinics have faced criminal accusations tied to abortion-related conduct and practicing medicine without a license. Public court reporting in 2025 described the investigation as involving surveillance and a patient complaint, with misoprostol—an obstetric drug that can have multiple clinical uses—emerging as a central point in competing arguments about what occurred at the clinics.

What Rojas’ legal team argues on appeal

On appeal, attorneys for Rojas and the clinic entities have challenged whether the injunction was properly granted and whether it is sufficiently specific. They have also disputed the evidentiary basis for concluding the clinics provided illegal abortions or that staff acted outside the scope permitted under a midwife license.

A key legal question is whether the attorney general’s office has authority under the relevant Texas statutes to seek broad clinic-closure relief through civil court, or whether such remedies should be pursued through other regulatory channels such as professional licensing bodies. The appeal also highlights procedural issues typical of emergency civil orders, including what level of proof is required at an early stage and how long a temporary injunction may remain in effect while litigation continues.

Why the hearing matters for Houston-area care

The case comes amid a broader reshaping of reproductive and women’s health services in Texas following the state’s abortion bans. While the appeal focuses on a specific set of clinics and specific allegations, the outcome could clarify:

• how aggressively state officials can use civil courts to halt clinic operations;
• what evidence courts require to keep clinics closed before a full trial;
• how civil enforcement interacts with parallel criminal proceedings.

The appeals court’s decision will determine whether the injunction stays in place and will shape the next steps in the civil case, while criminal matters continue on a separate track.

No final determination on the underlying allegations is made by a hearing focused on whether a temporary injunction should be upheld. A ruling is expected after the court considers the arguments and the record developed in the lower court proceedings.