Kyle Hawkins
Republican | Texas
Candidate Profile*
Originalist
BIOGRAPHY
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
ENDORSEMENTS*
CONSERVATIVE (6)
Texas Home School Coalition THSC PAC
Texas Values Action
Life PAC
*Texas Young Republicans
Leander Area Republican Women
LIBERAL (1)
Houston Police Officers Union PAC
OTHER (3)
Greg Abbott
*Texas Association of Business TXBIZ PAC
Houston Region Business Coalition HRBC
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (3)
Brett Busby (2025)
Jimmy Blacklock (2025)
Ted Cruz (2015)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
At the 2019 Texas Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society, Kyle Sullivan participated in a discussion on nationwide injunctions, addressing the scope and legal implications of federal courts issuing injunctions that apply beyond the parties to a case.
In a 2026 Federalist Society discussion titled The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court, Sullivan participated in a discussion concerning the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.
In Webb Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Marshall (2026), Justice Hawkins concurred separately in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision allowing two school-board members to recover attorney’s fees after a court ordered their district to provide requested records. The issue was whether they had “won” the case even though the order was temporary and their terms later ended. The Court held they had prevailed because the order gave them the records they sought. Hawkins agreed but stressed that temporary orders normally do not make someone a winner because they are meant to temporarily protect a party’s rights, not finally decide a case. He agreed this case was different because the order effectively gave the board members all the relief they could receive.
In In re J.D.H. (2026), Justice Sullivan dissented from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision allowing a parent to appeal after missing the deadline because the parent’s lawyer failed to file on time. Sullivan argued that the law sets a strict 20-day deadline for filing an appeal and that courts should not create exceptions when a lawyer makes a mistake. He concluded that the Court did not have the authority to extend the deadline and would have dismissed the appeal.
In In re K.N. (2026), Justice Hawkins wrote the Court’s opinion, holding that the evidence supported termination of one parent’s rights but not the other’s. The Court emphasized that parental rights are fundamental and may be terminated only when supported by clear and convincing evidence. Hawkins stressed that termination should be a last resort, not a first response, and reversed the termination where the evidence was insufficient.
In Noyes v. Voges (2026), Justice Hawkins concurred separately in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision vacating and remanding a case involving a lifetime firearm ban. The Court held that Noyes had preserved his constitutional challenges and that the lower court should reconsider them under the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening decision in United States v. Rahimi. Hawkins emphasized that Rahimi involved temporary disarmament based on a finding that the person posed a credible threat, while Noyes’s ban was permanent and lacked such a finding. Hawkins agreed with the remand and highlighted the usefulness of sending cases back to lower courts when the law changes.
In State v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC (2026), Justice Hawkins dissented from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision holding that the State had waived sovereign immunity for a property owner’s claim to repurchase land taken through eminent domain. Hawkins, however, argued that the Legislature must clearly and unmistakably waive sovereign immunity before the State can be sued. He concluded that the Property Code did not contain the required clear waiver and that the majority improperly found one based on statutory context and policy considerations. He would have ruled for the State.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Did not answer
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Did not answer
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
Did not answer
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Did not answer
What is the proper role of a judge?
Did not answer
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Did not answer
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
