Commissioners approve First Liberty pro bono representation for courthouse display in 3–2 vote

The Tarrant County Commissioners Court on March 10 approved a contract to accept pro bono legal representation from First Liberty Institute to defend a Ten Commandments display outside the 1895 courthouse, in a 3–2 vote after extended debate.

Proponents said First Liberty, which offered to represent the county at no taxpayer cost, brings national experience in religious-freedom litigation and could help the county avoid costly litigation. "They're the leading experts in the country on this particular field of law," a commissioner sponsoring the motion said, adding that the arrangement would not require county legal fees because representation was pro bono.

Opponents raised constitutional and public-perception concerns. Commissioner Alisa Simmons argued the county should avoid partnering with an organization that advocates a particular viewpoint and emphasized that accepting pro bono representation could create the appearance of government establishing a religious preference. She also asked who would pay any damages, fees or settlements if the county lost; supporters acknowledged the county would be responsible for any damages but argued the risk was low and the pro bono arrangement reduced taxpayer exposure for defense counsel fees.

Commissioners also questioned contract language that gave the outside firm primary control over litigation strategy; backers said that arrangement is practical when a specialized outside counsel leads complex litigation but that the county could cease the arrangement if it disagreed with litigation choices. The sponsor said First Liberty had defended a range of faith traditions and argued the firm would represent the county's interest in defending the display and its legal footing.

After discussion and an exchange over whether the court should solicit other opinions, the motion to accept First Liberty's pro bono services and to authorize finalization of the contract passed on a recorded vote of 3 in favor, 2 opposed.

The county said it expects no immediate financial outlay for outside counsel; any court-awarded damages or settlement costs would be the county's responsibility. The district attorney's office was suggested by opponents as an alternative in the event of litigation; supporters said the DA's office could remain involved and that First Liberty's expertise made the pro bono arrangement valuable for the particular legal question.

The court took no other immediate action on the monument; commissioners who opposed the contract said they would monitor any litigation closely and push for transparency in any settlement or legal strategy choices.