Texas Governor Signs Controversial Bill Expanding Immunity for Officers Using Less Lethal Weapons

Texas Governor Signs Controversial Bill Expanding Immunity for Officers Using Less Lethal Weapons

AUSTIN, TX — In a move that has ignited intense debate across the state and beyond, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has officially signed Senate Bill 2570 into law, a sweeping measure that expands legal immunity for law enforcement officers who deploy less lethal weapons such as stun guns, bean bag rounds, and tear gas.

The bill, authored by Republican lawmakers and passed along party lines in both chambers of the Texas Legislature, provides officers with civil and criminal immunity if they “reasonably believed” the use of such force was necessary at the time of the incident. This language, modeled after “qualified immunity” principles, is already being scrutinized by civil rights organizations, legal experts, and protest advocates who fear it will embolden misconduct and erode public trust in law enforcement.

A Law Framed as Protection — and a Lightning Rod for Criticism

Governor Abbott praised the bill as a necessary step to support law enforcement officers, especially in high-pressure situations where they must make split-second decisions.

“Officers deserve the ability to protect themselves and maintain order without the constant fear of frivolous lawsuits or criminal prosecution,” Abbott said during the signing ceremony held at the Texas Department of Public Safety headquarters in Austin. “This legislation ensures that when officers use non-lethal means to control dangerous situations, they won’t be punished for doing their jobs.”

Supporters of the bill, including law enforcement unions and conservative legislators, argue that less lethal weapons are essential tools that can prevent the need for deadly force. They say the new law will encourage officers to choose non-lethal methods more confidently, potentially saving lives and reducing fatal confrontations.

Senator Brian Hughes (R-Mineola), one of the bill’s key sponsors, stated, “This law strikes the right balance. It protects officers who act in good faith while still allowing investigations into real abuses. But it stops the witch hunts and endless legal threats that have handcuffed our law enforcement professionals.”

Civil Rights Groups Warn of Dangerous Consequences

However, the law has drawn a sharp rebuke from civil rights advocates, legal scholars, and protest groups who say it sets a dangerous precedent and may further entrench a culture of impunity in policing—especially during public demonstrations.

Critics argue that the bill’s vague wording—particularly the “reasonably believed” clause—makes it difficult to hold officers accountable, even in situations where the use of force may have been excessive, unjustified, or politically motivated. The concern is especially heightened in light of recent protests where officers have used tear gas and rubber bullets against largely peaceful demonstrators.

“This is a green light for abuse,” said Terrence Walker, policy director for the Texas Civil Rights Coalition. “It says that as long as an officer says they thought it was necessary, they’re off the hook—regardless of what actually happened. We’ve seen too many examples where ‘less lethal’ force has left people permanently injured, or worse.”

The ACLU of Texas also issued a blistering statement, calling the law “a step backward in the fight for justice and transparency,” and warning that it could have a chilling effect on the rights of Texans to assemble and protest peacefully.

Impacts on Protests, Minority Communities, and Legal Oversight

The law’s opponents are particularly concerned about its implications for marginalized communities, which often bear the brunt of aggressive policing tactics. Data from previous protest events and police encounters have shown that Black and Latino residents are disproportionately affected by less lethal force.

“History shows us that these tools aren’t used evenly,” said Ana Martínez, a civil rights attorney based in Houston. “This law will give cover to officers who weaponize crowd control tools against communities of color and people exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Some legal experts worry the bill could make it more difficult for victims of excessive force to seek justice. Prior to SB 2570, claims involving less lethal force had to be evaluated under general use-of-force standards. Now, even if an officer seriously injures a civilian, they could be protected simply by asserting they “reasonably believed” the use was necessary—an inherently subjective standard that often favors the defense.

Looking Ahead: Legal Challenges Expected

Opponents of the legislation are already gearing up for a legal battle. Several civil rights groups have indicated plans to challenge the law in court on constitutional grounds, arguing that it violates due process and undermines protections against unreasonable force.

Meanwhile, municipalities and police departments across Texas are grappling with how to interpret and implement the new legal protections. Some departments have expressed support for the bill, while others are urging caution, noting that clear internal guidelines and accountability structures are still essential.

As Texas joins a growing number of states reexamining the boundaries of police immunity, the conversation is far from over. With SB 2570 now the law of the land, its impact will likely be seen in courtrooms, protest lines, and police precincts for years to come.

Whether it will enhance public safety or erode civil liberties remains the pressing—and polarizing—question.