Parent sues Harris County officials over enforcement of state orders conflicting with immigration law

Bob Casey Federal Courthouse
Bob Casey Federal Courthouse
0Comments

A recent lawsuit challenges the enforcement of state court orders that allegedly conflict with federal immigration law, raising concerns about parental rights and due process for foreign nationals in the United States. The suit was filed by Erna Aletta Cox on March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Marilyn Burgess (Harris County District Clerk), Jonathan Fombonne (Harris County Attorney), Ken Paxton (Attorney General of Texas), Ed Gonzalez (Harris County Sheriff), and Ken Gregorski (Superintendent of Katy Independent School District), all in their official capacities.

According to the complaint, Cox is a foreign national who entered the country lawfully under a non-immigrant visa along with her minor children. She alleges that after entering on L-1A/L-2 visa classifications—which require departure upon expiration—she held exclusive custodial rights over her children, including decisions regarding their residence and education. However, a state court imposed a geographic restriction preventing her from leaving the school district with her children. This restriction, Cox claims, made it impossible to comply with both state and federal laws once her visa expired.

The filing outlines that when Cox’s visa expired and she had no lawful options to remain in the United States, she departed as required by federal law. Shortly after her departure, the other parent obtained emergency relief from a state court through ex parte proceedings. The complaint states that this resulted in an immediate reversal of custody without any finding of parental unfitness or adjudication on the merits. Additionally, while Cox remained subject to restrictions preventing movement outside the district, those restraints were lifted for the other parent.

Cox argues that these actions amounted to an ongoing deprivation of liberty for both herself and her children. She alleges that defendants enforced state orders which not only conflicted with federal immigration mandates but also deprived her and her children of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, she claims that “Defendants’ enforcement restrained the children’s freedom of movement through state action and conditioned Plaintiff’s parental rights on unlawful presence.”

The complaint further asserts that state proceedings relied on unverified assertions regarding changes in immigration status for both the other parent and the children without documentary proof or proper consent from Cox as required for derivative visa changes. It contends that “the court assumed jurisdictional facts it lacked authority to assume,” leading to procedural deprivation.

Cox brings five claims for relief: violation of the Supremacy Clause by enforcing orders conflicting with federal immigration law; deprivation of liberty without due process; infringement on substantive due process parental rights; denial of procedural due process; and unequal treatment based on national origin and language in violation of equal protection guarantees.

In terms of remedies sought, Cox requests declaratory judgment stating that enforcement of such state-court orders violates both the Supremacy Clause and Fourteenth Amendment where they restrain international departure or penalize compliance with federal immigration law. She also seeks an injunction barring defendants from enforcing any order restricting international movement or conditioning parental rights on unlawful presence. Additional requests include costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Cox emphasizes throughout her filing that she does not seek custody determination or adjudication regarding parental fitness but rather aims solely to challenge what she describes as unconstitutional enforcement actions by state officials.

The plaintiff is representing herself as a pro se litigant. No attorney names are listed in connection with this case filing. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-02436.

Source: 426cv02436_Erna_A_Cox_v_Marilyn_Burgess_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf



Related

Earle Cabell Federal Building

Former employee John R. Coulter accuses 3M Company of discrimination and retaliation

A former worker at a Brownwood, Texas facility has filed a federal lawsuit against 3M Company, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, sexual harassment, and retaliation.

Abilene Federal Courthouse

Former custodial workers accuse National Management Resources Corporation of unpaid overtime wages

Two former employees have filed a lawsuit against National Management Resources Corporation, claiming the company failed to pay required overtime wages.

John G.E. Marck, Acting U.S. Attorney at Southern District of Texas

Southern District of Texas charges 211 in immigration and border security cases

The Southern District of Texas charged over two hundred people last week with various immigration-related offenses ranging from illegal entry to human smuggling. Acting U.S. Attorney John G.E. Marck announced several new indictments along with recent sentencings tied to repeat offenders.

Trending

The Weekly Newsletter

Sign-up for the Weekly Newsletter from Texas Courts Daily.