The Litigation Lobby: Civil Justice Reform and the Future of the Texas-Florida Economic Advantage

As Texas continues to grow and attract new businesses and residents, preserving confidence in the civil justice system remains an important policy objective.

PolicyBrief_Litigation_Jun2026-v03.pdf

Download PDF • 2.01MB

Texas has spent decades developing a civil justice framework intended to balance access to the courts with economic growth, governmental accountability, and legal predictability. From the enactment of the Texas Tort Claims Act to comprehensive reforms addressing medical liability, proportionate responsibility, and meritless litigation, policymakers have consistently sought to create an environment that encourages business investment while preserving legitimate avenues for legal redress. The state’s economic growth and reputation as a destination for businesses and capital have occurred alongside these reforms and underscore the importance of maintaining a stable and predictable legal climate.

Recent legislative trends suggest that policymakers should remain attentive to how new causes of action, expanded enforcement authority, increasing reliance on outside counsel, and evolving litigation practices may affect those longstanding reform efforts. Many of these initiatives are motivated by legitimate policy objectives, including protecting privacy, parental rights, public safety, and other priorities valued by Texans. Even so, lawmakers should carefully evaluate whether future expansions create unintended consequences that increase litigation costs, discourage investment, or weaken reforms that have contributed to the state’s economic success.

As Texas continues to grow and attract new businesses and residents, preserving confidence in the civil justice system remains an important policy objective. Efforts to increase transparency in third-party litigation funding, address excessive damage awards, ensure responsible use of state enforcement authority, and maintain judicial adherence to legislative intent can help safeguard the civil justice reforms that have shaped Texas’ modern legal and economic landscape.

While political engagement by trial lawyers is lawful and constitutionally protected, the scale, coordination, and tactical targeting of these efforts raise serious public-policy questions. In particular, they challenge whether civil justice systems are being shaped primarily by broad public interests or by narrow, litigation-driven priorities.

The economic stakes of that question have grown alongside the economy itself. Florida and Texas have emerged over the past decade as two of the most economically dynamic states in the country, attracting capital, corporate headquarters, and high-income residents at a rate unmatched in state history. That trajectory is not automatic, nor permanent. It depends, in part, on the continued perception among business decision-makers that the legal environment is predictable and insulated from the kind of plaintiff-friendly manipulation that defines jurisdictions losing ground in the competition for capital. Erosion of the reforms enacted would not be a neutral policy reversion; it would send a clear signal to the same audience that propelled the growth that the calculus has changed. Conversely, further reforms that address remaining exposure points, including third-party litigation funding transparency, bad-faith standards in commercial insurance disputes, and medical damages valuation, would reinforce the states’ positions as preferred locations for businesses and capital seeking a stable legal climate. The Boom Belt is a competitive position, not a geographic birthright, and a state’s standing within it depends as much on what happens in the Capitol as on what happens in the courthouse.

These experiences are useful beyond borders because the dynamics they reflect are not unique to any state. Civil justice policy can be shaped not only by public debate and legislative intent, but by targeted political investment from highly organized interests. States that pursue civil justice reform will face organized, well-funded opposition working simultaneously across legislative, judicial, and electoral channels. That is what this paper documents. Understanding how money, policy, and institutional incentives intersect is a precondition for effective engagement, and the cost of not understanding this intersection is the inevitable erosion of gains that took decades to achieve. 

Read the full white paper in the link above.