A Texas judge issued a temporary injunction this week blocking significant changes to the state’s Historically Underutilized Business program, known as HUB, handing a court victory to minority-owned businesses that had argued the changes would strip away their ability to compete for state contracts.
Judge Amy Clark Meachum of the Travis County District Court ruled Monday in favor of a coalition of businesses that sued Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock over modifications the plaintiffs said would effectively dismantle core protections of the program. The judge found that the executive branch cannot unilaterally alter legislation passed by the Texas Legislature, and that the comptroller lacked the authority to determine the constitutionality of the statute behind the HUB program.
The ruling restores the program to its pre-December 2025 framework for the businesses named in the lawsuit while the case moves toward a full trial.
What the HUB program does and why it matters
The Texas Legislature established the HUB program in 1987 to expand access to state contracting for businesses owned by Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native American entrepreneurs, as well as women-owned firms. Over nearly four decades, the program has directed billions of dollars in state contracts to businesses that have historically been shut out of public procurement.
For many of those businesses, HUB certification is not a supplemental advantage. It is frequently the determining factor in whether a small firm in construction, transportation or professional services can compete for contracts at all. The lawsuit, filed as Globe Express Trucking Inc., et al. v. Hancock, reflected that reality. The plaintiffs argued that the comptroller’s proposed changes posed a risk of immediate and irreparable harm to businesses whose survival depends on access to the certification.
The legal argument at the center of the HUB case
Judge Meachum‘s decision rested on a straightforward separation of powers principle. The executive branch enforces law. It does not rewrite it. Her ruling made clear that administrative actions cannot be used to alter legislation that the Legislature has already passed, regardless of how the executive branch interprets the underlying statute.
Alphonso David, president and chief executive of the Global Black Economic Forum and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, described the ruling as an unambiguous statement that the comptroller acted outside the bounds of the law. The Global Black Economic Forum and allied business organizations have framed the case as a test of whether state agencies can reshape equity-focused programs through administrative channels without legislative backing.
Where the HUB fight sits within a larger national debate
The legal battle over the HUB program did not emerge in isolation. It arrives against the backdrop of an intensifying national conversation about race-conscious policy. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended affirmative action in college admissions, challenges to equity-focused programs have spread across sectors and states. The HUB program operates in public contracting rather than education, but shares the same foundational objective of correcting historical disparities through targeted policy.
Legal experts watching the case suggest that if the injunction holds through trial and appeal, it could draw a meaningful boundary around how far state agencies can go in altering legislatively mandated diversity programs without returning to the Legislature first.
What comes next for the HUB program
The case is scheduled for a full trial on Nov. 9, 2026. The state is expected to appeal the injunction, which could extend the legal fight well beyond that date and potentially carry it to higher courts.
For the businesses currently protected by the ruling, the injunction provides breathing room rather than resolution. The underlying questions about executive authority and the future of equity-focused contracting programs in Texas remain unsettled. What the ruling established, at least for now, is that those questions belong to a court and ultimately to the Legislature, not to a comptroller acting alone.
