The governor of the state, Greg Abbott, asked the Supreme Court of Texas on Tuesday night to remove the deputy of the state, Jane Woo, the Chairman of the Democratic Board of Directors in Texas, from his seat, on the pretext that Wu abandoned his office to flee the state.
Many legal experts questioned, in interviews with ABC News, about the strength of the Abbott case to remove legislators.
Wu, along with other democratic lawmakers, left the state on Sunday to delay a republican reconstruction in the state’s Congress areas by depriving the House of Representatives for a sufficient number of legislators to conduct works.
In an emergency petition for the Quo Stemento command, Abbott Wu argued his office by fleeing the state, creating a vacant job that Abbott will have a filling authority.
“An operation can be said that someone is incorrectly and must be removed,” said Samuel Isacharov, a professor of constitutional law, Samuel Isacharov, Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University.
He said that the measure was “more used” in the United States after the civil war to remove former Confederation officers.
The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, speaks to a group of those present at the event of the Empowerment night, where he called for the choice of school and vouchers at the Timble Christian School in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 6, 2025.
Fort Worth Star Telegram/TNS
Some experts seemed skeptical on Tuesday night that Abbott applying to try to try to remove Wu from his position had a legal advantage – although some said that it was still that the state’s Supreme Court could rule in favor of the ruler.
The Supreme Court of Texas consists completely of Republicans, with six of the nine appointed by Abbott.
“In Texas, the Supreme Court was directly elected in the party preliminary elections, which means that the Supreme Court judges in Texas will seek to avoid doing things that may anger the Republican elementary voters,” Mark Jones, Professor of Political Science at Rice University told ABC News.
Charles Rhodes, a professor of constitutional law at Missouri University, said that if the state’s Supreme Court finds that “the legislator’s office has been abandoned or waived, they have the authority and the jurisdiction of the office’s devotion.”
However, Rhodes said that Abbott seeks to rule “has no previous support in American jurisprudence.”
“I have never seen [quo warranto] Rhodes told ABC News in the history of America, in my knowledge, in a position in which you have a legislator that breaks the quorum.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott in Hunt, Texas, July 8, 2025 and Democratic Deputy Texas Jin Woo in Warfelle, Illinois, August 4, 2025.
Reuters
David Frumkin, assistant professor of law at the Houston University Law Center, argued that Wu did not give up his legislative position and create vacant.
The legal precedent – which was martyred by the petition of Abbott – determines “abandonment” based on “the intention of the official to abandon their position”, and Wu has no such intention, according to Froomkin.
“What the ruler is doing here is questioning, it is the legitimacy of his political opponents just because they oppose his legislative agenda.”
He added that the legislative branch has its own treatment to remove the members, which is two -thirds of the vote from the room to expel the legislators, and that “it will violate the separation of the authorities before the executive or judicial authority to abandon an internal legislative issue.”
Woo wrote in a statement, “Driving the ruler of the quorum was not like this for my office; it was a vent of the right.”
The Supreme Court of the State Wu asked to respond to the Abbott petition on Friday afternoon.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks with volunteers and residents at a press conference in the wake of fatal floods in Hunt, Texas, United States, July 8, 2025. Reuters/Sergio Flores
Sergio Flores/Reuters
The Texas Public Prosecutor, Ken Pakston, who is running for a seat in the US Senate in Texas, argued that Abbott had no power to submit the petition and promised to follow up on the punitive work on Friday if Democrats refused to return to the private session.
Abbott pushed back, on the pretext that he has this right.
According to Froomkin, Paxon’s position as a public lawyer does not give him a greater area than the ruler to remove democratic lawmakers through the Supreme Court.
“He faces the same separation between the problems of the authorities,” said Fromkin.
If the issue of the removal of legislators is ultimately resumed to the United States Supreme Court, Issarov, Professor of New York University, said they could take it, because it will be “powder powder” if the legislative fields allow the other states to follow the Texas in the medium reconstruction process.
“If Texas does, California does so, and New York does so, then other countries will do so in response to that, and so on.”
Capitol was seen on July 21, 2025, in Austin. Legionships meet a special session to discuss an agenda set by the governor of the state, Greg Abbott, seeking to treat relief from floods in response to floods in central Texas, which killed more than 100 people, re -dividing Congress, and THC products.
Brandon Bell/Getty Pictures
ISSACHAROF Compare Texas Placement of the 2024 Supreme Court case against Anderson. In this ruling, the court prevented Colorado from removing President Donald Trump from the state’s vote as a Republican candidate, noting that they were hoping to prevent another spiral from other countries that expel the candidates from voting.
At the same time, the Supreme Court said in the 2019 decision that Federal judges should not mediate by federal judges in the 2019 resolution.
“Federal judges do not have a license to re -allocate political power between the two main political parties,” said John Roberts President John Roberts.