The Texas Supreme Court on Friday issued an order that temporarily suspends the oral deposition of a representative of Texas “Transgender” Student Union LLC, the entity named on a series of student‑directed mailers that have sparked heated debate across the state.

Order focuses on procedural issues, not merits

The justices acted “without regard to the merits,” the court filing states, indicating that the pause is strictly procedural. The order requires the “Transgender” Education Network of Texas (TENT) to respond by 10 a.m. Monday, November 2, regarding the petition for temporary relief that remains pending.

Background on the mailers

The mailers, first reported by the Dallas Express, were addressed to students and discussed topics such as unsupportive parents, emancipation and out‑of‑state medical care. TENT has denied any authorization of the materials. The organization filed a Rule 202 petition on October 22 seeking testimony before it files a lawsuit, alleging that the communications used its name and materials without permission and caused threats, security costs and canceled programming.

The court record lists six proposed topics for questioning the LLC’s representative, including anyone who directly or indirectly supplied anything of value toward planning, creating or distributing the communications. This language could extend beyond the party that paid the printer’s bill.

Who is behind the LLC?

The LLC was formed on September 2 in Wyoming, according to business records reviewed by CBS News Texas. Its principal office, mailing address and organizer’s address are listed as the Sheridan address of Northwest Registered Agent, a service provider that does not reveal the company’s beneficial owners.

Three Z Printing holds the bulk‑mail permit used for the brochures, according to a U.S. Postal Service spokesperson. The permit shows a mailing‑service connection but does not identify who commissioned, wrote or financed the material.

A separate postal identifier on two brochures led investigators to tracking firm SnailWorks, which said it tracks mail using USPS scan data but does not create, sell or rent mailing lists. Its involvement does not clarify who supplied the recipient addresses.

No financial records found in public filings

TENT’s preservation demand seeks bank and payment records, print‑shop job orders, postage records, mailing lists and related communications. The public record reviewed by the Dallas Express contains no invoice, bank transfer or list‑purchase record that would pinpoint the ultimate payer or list supplier.

Infobip, the messaging platform used for related text messages, provided written answers about two phone numbers used on October 12‑13. Its North America Group President, Ethan Gustav, said he reviewed a customer agreement and campaign‑registration information, but the court record redacts the customer, contact and payer details.

Names that have appeared in testimony

The Republican Women Caucus Fund and a person named John Braun were mentioned in later‑disclosed text‑related testimony, according to The Texas Tribune. Both the fund’s spokesperson and the Washington‑state senator denied any involvement in financing the printed brochures.

Legal arguments on both sides

The LLC argues that compelled disclosure would violate anonymous‑speech and association rights and cites a pending Texas Citizens Participation Act motion that seeks a discovery suspension. It warns that disclosure could irreversibly expose identities and financing relationships.

TENT disputes that defense, maintaining it did not authorize the communications. West Texas District Attorney Sarah Stogner has opened a potential forgery investigation focused on the printed mailers, a separate criminal probe that the Supreme Court order does not affect.

What the pause means for Texans

The stay does not halt the criminal investigation, nor does it undo Infobip’s earlier written responses. It also does not name a financier or resolve whether any conduct was unlawful. By keeping the deposition on hold, the court preserves the parties’ ability to argue constitutional protections while the petition is fully considered.

Stakeholders and concerned parents will be watching the next steps closely, as the outcome could set precedent for how anonymous political or advocacy communications are treated under Texas law.

Original reporting: The Dallas Express — read the source article.