(CN) - The Texas Supreme Court has revived an effort by state Attorney General Ken Paxton to shut down the Catholic charity Annunciation House, which Paxton accuses of illegally harboring migrants.

In a Friday ruling, the court found that despite the numerous legal and constitutional arguments involved, the case in front of it boiled down to one simple issue: "whether the attorney general may file a lawsuit."

"Framed that way, our answer - that the attorney general may do so - should sound rather unremarkable," Justice Evan Young wrote in the court's opinion.

Annunciation House and the Texas Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

Annunciation House is a religious nonprofit that operates several shelters in El Paso, Texas, that provide food and housing to homeless people, including migrants who have crossed over the U.S.-Mexico border. Last year, the charity filed a lawsuit seeking to block a demand by Paxton to examine the nonprofit's records. In response, Paxton asked the court to allow him to file a "quo warranto" petition to revoke Annunciation House's authority to operate in Texas, accusing the charity of "illegal alien harboring" and operating a "stash house."

Annunciation House has rejected these accusations, saying it does not intentionally hide people from law enforcement.

El Paso County Judge Francisco Dominguez denied Paxton's request and sided with Annunciation House on numerous grounds, including finding that Paxton's petition would violate Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Texas' law against "illegal alien harboring" was preempted by federal immigration law and that the statute under which Paxton sought the charity's records was unconstitutional.

In overturning Dominguez's decision, the Texas Supreme Court emphasized that it was only ruling on whether Paxton may file a quo warranto action against Annunciation House, not on whether such an action would ultimately be successful or whether the charity had violated the law.

The Supreme Court ruled that Dominguez erred in finding several Texas statutes had displaced the attorney general's authority to file a quo warranto action to shut down businesses or nonprofits based on accusations of criminal conduct.

Dominguez found that Texas law requires a corporation or person acting on its behalf to have been convicted of felonious conduct for the government to be able to shutter it. However, the supreme court ruled that a provision of the Texas Constitution allowing the attorney general to seek judicial forfeiture of corporate charter rights when "sufficient cause exists" unless "otherwise expressly directed by law" means that any attempt by the legislature to reduce the attorney general's power in this area must be unambiguous, which it found was not the case here.

The court also rejected Dominguez's ruling that Texas' illegal alien harboring statute is preempted by federal immigration law and is unconstitutionally vague. It found that the statute complements federal immigration law and targets conduct that involves actively concealing immigrants from law enforcement, not just sheltering them.

The court disagreed with Dominguez's finding that the conduct Paxton accused Annunciation House of did not amount to illegal harboring of migrants, as Paxton's accusations went beyond the charity lawfully providing shelter. The justices found Paxton had sufficiently accused Annunciation House of intentionally concealing individuals from law enforcement.

The justices further rejected the lower court's ruling that Texas' records examination law violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, finding the law allows for adequate pre-compliance judicial review.

Concerning Dominguez's ruling that Paxton's petition was barred by the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person or entity's free exercise of religion, the court found that whether the action substantially burdens the Catholic charity's exercise of its religious beliefs is a fact-based issue that should be decided through further proceedings.

"Undoubtedly, RFRA can be powerful, however it is deployed, and its potency often may be felt quite early," Young wrote. "But it is not a tool to convert a proceeding focused on whether litigation may even commence into one that reaches and resolves ultimate issues."

The Supreme Court chastised Dominguez for attacking Paxton's motives in filing the petition and accusing the attorney general of engaging in "harassment" against Annunciation House.

"On remand, we remind the trial court of its 'duty to extend to the [attorney general] - a member of a coordinate branch - a presumption of regularity, good faith, and legality,'" Young wrote. "That respect is owed to the coordinate branches by every level of the judiciary, just as the judiciary expects the other branches to respect orders and judgments that emanate from our branch of government."

Source: Courthouse News Service