Gina Hinojosa took Gov. Greg Abbott to court on Monday, asking a Travis County judge to force open the governor’s communications with Elon Musk.
The Texas gubernatorial candidate and state representative filed a petition for an injunction in Travis County District Court. She accuses Abbott of violating the Texas Public Information Act by blocking her from reviewing those records. The filing lands just weeks before the Nov. 3 elections.
Courthouse News reported that Hinojosa wants the court to order Abbott to let her examine the governor’s communications with Musk and his companies. She frames the demand as legislative oversight. Abbott’s office calls the case a political stunt.
Hinojosa sought to inspect the communications for legislative purposes. The governor’s office denied that request.
In her complaint, she argues the statute leaves no room for refusal when a state lawmaker asks for the material.
Hinojosa wrote in the filing:
“The statute is mandatory.”
She added a sharper charge against the governor:
“Governor Abbott refuses to comply with his clear legal duty. He is breaking the law.”
The petition asks the court for an injunction that would compel Abbott to allow her to review the requested records. No public ruling on that request has been described.
The dispute did not begin with Hinojosa’s lawsuit. In 2025, The Texas Newsroom filed a public information request covering the same category of communications. The governor’s office assembled the material and then asked the Texas attorney general for permission to withhold it.
Abbott’s office objected on several grounds. One stated basis was that the communications contained information that was “intimate and embarrassing.”
Attorney General Ken Paxton later issued a ruling directing the release of some of the requested records. The production totaled 1,374 pages. All but around 200 of those pages were completely blacked out.
Hinojosa then asked to inspect the unredacted versions. Abbott’s office refused. That refusal is now the center of her Travis County case.
Hinojosa’s complaint rests on a specific reading of the Texas Public Information Act. She says the law requires governmental bodies to “provide public information, including confidential information” to state legislators upon request.
On that theory, redactions that might hold up against a routine open-records seeker do not block a sitting lawmaker who asks to see the files. The complaint treats the duty as clear and the refusal as unlawful.
She also spells out why she says the Musk records matter. In the filing, Hinojosa described a wide web of ties between the governor and the multibillionaire.
Her complaint states:
“The documented connections between Abbott and Musk are extensive. They include personal interactions, joint public appearances, large political contributions, economic development incentives, and public praise for one another, as well as laws that Abbott and his legislative allies have promoted to help Musk and his companies.”
She went further on the stakes of concentrated wealth in state politics:
“The disturbing influence over Texas government of Musk and his fellow mega-billionaires makes clear the importance of Representative Hinojosa’s legislative oversight efforts to protect Texans against the potential abuse of such a severe concentration of power and money.”
Those lines are her allegations and advocacy, not adjudicated findings. The court has not ruled on them.
Abbott’s press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris, rejected the suit in blunt terms. He cast it as election-season theater from a rival, not a clean records fight.
Mahaleris said:
“The lawsuit is baseless and nothing more than an act of desperation.”
He also accused Hinojosa of misusing her office while she runs statewide:
“Even worse, state Representative Gina Hinojosa is abusing her official capacity as an outgoing lawmaker to create headlines for political purposes. Texans see this for what it is: a political stunt.”
The governor’s office has not, in the available public statements tied to this filing, released a point-by-point legal brief on every exemption claim. The posture on the record is denial of wrongdoing and an attack on Hinojosa’s motives and timing.
Musk is an Austin resident who moved his SpaceX and X businesses to Texas. He sits at the center of the records Hinojosa wants, though he is not a party to the Travis County petition.
The same fact set places Musk in another statewide contest. He recently sent nine-figure sums to Paxton in the attorney general’s tight U.S. Senate race against Democrat James Talarico. Paxton is the same official whose office directed the partial release of the redacted production at issue in Hinojosa’s complaint.
Hinojosa is challenging Abbott in the governor’s race. Courthouse News noted recent polling averages showing Abbott holding only a narrow lead as the Nov. 3 elections approach. The lawsuit’s Monday filing comes with that calendar in full view.
The operative filing is a petition for injunctive relief, not a criminal charge and not a final judgment. Hinojosa alleges a violation of the Texas Public Information Act. Abbott’s office denies the claim and brands the case political. Guilt or liability has not been established.
Investigators and the court will need to determine whether the Act’s legislator-access language reaches these communications in unredacted form, and whether the governor’s prior objections, including the “intimate and embarrassing” ground, still hold against a lawmaker’s inspection demand.
No public results have been released in this package about the full text of every exemption Abbott asserted, the exact calendar date behind the “Monday” filing label, a case number, or the specific dates and topics inside the Musk messages themselves. The production figure on the record is the 1,374-page set with only about 200 pages not fully blacked out.
Procedurally, the next visible steps sit with the Travis County District Court: whether to hear the injunction request, how fast to set briefing, and whether any order will compel inspection, sustain withholding, or draw a narrower line. The attorney general’s earlier directive already shaped the redacted release. This suit targets what that release left hidden.
Hinojosa presents herself as a legislator enforcing a mandatory records duty and policing outsized private influence in Austin. Abbott’s spokesman presents her as an outgoing member and gubernatorial challenger chasing headlines weeks before voters decide.
Both frames are now locked in court paper and official pushback. The Public Information Act question is real on the face of the complaint. The election timing is equally real on the public calendar. The Travis County filing forces those tracks into the same case.
For conservatives watching Texas governance, the fight hits familiar pressure points: how far open-records statutes reach inside a governor’s communications, how attorney general rulings interact with later legislator demands, and how campaign rivals use statutory tools when the ballots are nearly due.
Musk’s business move to Texas, his public alignment with state leaders, and his large support for Paxton supply the political voltage. The legal question remains narrower. Did Abbott’s office break a mandatory duty to a state representative, or did Hinojosa stretch legislative process into a late-cycle discovery weapon? The petition asks a judge to choose.
Election-year subpoenas and injunctions test more than one officeholder’s message discipline. They test whether Texas transparency law is a steady rule for everyone in power, or a seasonal prop when rivals need a headline and a courtroom.
