The legal case
Can Texas legally leave the Union?
The short answer: the Constitution doesn't say no. The longer answer is below, and it matters, because the political path forward depends on knowing exactly where the law stands.
The short answer
The United States Constitution does not contain a clause forbidding a state from leaving the Union. There is no statute that says it. There is no Supreme Court ruling, including the one everyone cites, Texas v. White, that closes the question on the law alone. The argument against Texas independence is, and has always been, a political argument dressed up as a legal one.
The Texas Constitution, on the other hand, is unusually clear. Article 1, Section 2 says, and this is the actual text:
"All political power is inherent in the people. All free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
Read that sentence twice. The people of Texas have the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. That's not a footnote. It's the foundational article of the Texas Bill of Rights. It was ratified by Texans. It governs Texans. It does not contain an asterisk that says "unless Washington disagrees."
What about Texas v. White?
The 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White is the only judicial ruling anyone cites against Texas independence. We treat it in detail on a dedicated page, read it here, but the headline facts are these: it came with a dissent from Justice Robert C. Grier, who disagreed "on all points raised and decided"; Chief Justice Chase had to build his "perpetual union" on a phrase from the Preamble; and a later Supreme Court ruling, Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), held that the federal government can draw no power from the Preamble at all, which is exactly where Texas v. White's argument originates. The historian Brion McClanahan summed up the modern academic view of the case in two words: "So what?"
The ruling stands as an 1869 political artifact, not a sealed constitutional door. It is binding only to the extent that the political branches accept it. And, relevant to where we are in 2026, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question. The Supreme Court adjudicates politics constantly, but it does not get to pre-empt the people of a state from deciding their own future.
The international-law floor
Under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), the foundational treaty defining what makes a nation a nation, there are four criteria:
- A permanent population. Texas has 31 million people.
- A defined territory. Texas has 268,597 square miles, mapped to the survey foot.
- A functioning government. The Texas Legislature meets, the courts hear cases, the executive enforces law.
- The capacity to enter into relations with other states. Texas already runs trade missions to Mexico, the EU, Japan, the UK, and a dozen other partners.
Texas meets every criterion. Under international law, Texas is already a state in every meaningful sense except sovereignty. And sovereignty, in international law, is not granted by a domestic court. It is asserted by a people.
Fig. 1 · Statehood
the criteria for statehood under the 1933 Montevideo Convention that Texas already meets: a permanent population, defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to conduct foreign relations.
The political-legal path forward
So the law doesn't forbid it. What does it take to actually make Texas independence happen?
One thing: a binding referendum on the question of Texas independence.
The mechanism for that referendum is the Texas Independence Referendum Act (TIRA), a piece of legislation that has been filed in the Texas Legislature in successive sessions, most recently with growing co-sponsorship from sitting members. TIRA does one thing: it puts the question of Texas independence on the ballot as a binding referendum, with a yes/no question and a turnout threshold. The legislative path is straightforward: pass TIRA in both chambers, get the governor's signature, schedule the vote.
In 2020, the Texas Republican Party added a plank affirming Texas's right to secede, Plank 65, passed with 93% of delegates. In 2022 it went further, adopting a dedicated plank that calls for a referendum on Texas independence (Plank 225), reaffirmed in 2024 as Plank 203. The platform of the dominant party in a single-party-dominant state isn't a binding instrument, but it's a clear political signal about where the energy is.
Fig. 2 · The party
of Texas Republican delegates affirmed the right to secede in 2020 (Plank 65). The party has carried an independence-referendum plank ever since, in 2022 and 2024.
257 officials and candidates have signed the Texas First Pledge, which commits them to put Texas first and includes support for the independence referendum.
The question is therefore not "can it be done legally." The question is: how do we get the votes in the Legislature to pass TIRA, and how do we win the referendum that follows?
The answer is organized Texans. 635,452 Texans are on record demanding the vote. 257 officials and candidates have signed the Texas First Pledge. Texans are organizing county by county across the state. The Texas Independence Referendum Act is filed for a binding vote. The Legislature responds to organized constituencies, distributed across districts, with a single-issue commitment to the independence vote. That's the strategic logic. That's what the Texian Declaration is for. And that's why this site asks you to be counted.
What "secession" actually means in international and U.S. legal practice
A note on the word. We use "Texas independence" as the primary noun on this site because that's what we're talking about: a transition from a state of the United States to an independent Republic of Texas. "Secession" is a procedural word. "Independence" is the outcome.
The legal-procedural template that fits Texas's situation most closely is the negotiated separation: the path Scotland was offered in 2014, the path Quebec voted on in 1995, the path the Czech Republic and Slovakia took in 1993. These are not Civil Wars. They are not failed states. They are constitutional transitions, negotiated between the leaving party and the parent state, governed by treaty, and recognized by the international community.
The Confederacy is not the precedent. Brexit is, and TEXIT is named for it. Scotland's 2014 vote is. Quebec's 1995 referendum is. The independence precedent page walks through the whole record.
The honest part
No nation has ever left a parent nation without political pain. Treaties are hard. Federal property transitions are hard. Currency questions are hard. We address every one of those in The Plan. That's a separate question from "is this legal," but they're related questions, and you deserve to see how we think about them.
What is not hard, and what does not require a single piece of new federal legislation, is the first step: a binding referendum in Texas on the question of Texas independence. The legal path to that vote exists today. The political path requires organized Texans.
What to do next
If you've read this and you're satisfied that the legal path is real, the next step is to be counted. 635,452 Texans have already entered the movement. 257 officials and candidates have signed the Texas First Pledge. The Texas Independence Referendum Act is filed for a binding vote. Sign the Texian Declaration. Become a Texian. Be counted.
Texas First. Texas Forever.