Who Counts As A Daughter? Breaking News
Updated: 3 days ago
A Texas Court Temporarily Restores the Martha Laird Chapter
Who Counts as a Daughter? · Dispatch · First published 4 November 2026 · This post will be updated as documents surface.
Update below, 7 November 2026
On 2 November 2026, at 3:37 p.m., Judge Angela Saucier of the 76th District Court in Titus County, Texas, signed a temporary restraining order in the Martha Laird Chapter's lawsuit against the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution and the Texas Society Daughters of the American Revolution. The order bars both societies from taking the chapter's funds, records, or corporate governance on the strength of the October 10 disbandment. It also directs the National Society to restore the chapter, provisionally, to the standing it held before that vote. It expires at 9 a.m. on November 9, when the same court will hear the chapter's request for a longer injunction.¹ My earlier post covers the lawsuit itself.
I have read the signed order, so what follows is "Documented" in this series' terms. As of this writing, the Society has made no public response to the lawsuit or to the order.
What the order does
The order grants two distinct kinds of relief. The first is a set of restraints. Until the order expires, neither society may take, withdraw, or transfer the chapter's funds, accounts, records, or property, or direct anyone else to do so, because of the October 10 decision. Neither may file papers to terminate, wind up, or take over the chapter as a Texas corporation, or change the signatories on its bank accounts. Neither may take custody of the chapter's minute books, financial records, or membership records, or tell a bank or other custodian to treat either society as the chapter's owner or manager. The restraints do not freeze the chapter's own accounts. Acting through its own officers, it may still pay ordinary expenses, lawful debts, and reasonable litigation costs.²
The second kind of relief is affirmative, and less common. Within one business day after receiving actual notice of the order, the National Society must provisionally restore the chapter to the standing it held before October 10. That means putting it back on the Society's lists of active chapters and restoring its access to chapter systems and communications; recognizing the officers who were serving before October 10; returning to the chapter's roster any member the Society moved to Member-at-Large status solely because of the disbandment; and allowing the chapter the same participation and governance rights as any other chapter. The order does not undo any member's voluntary transfer to another chapter, and it does not require anyone to stay against her wishes.³
Before any of this takes effect through a writ, the chapter must post a bond of $100.⁴
What the order does not do, and how to read it
The order is careful about what it can and cannot do. Specifically, it states, "nothing in this provisional restoration determines who is eligible for membership in NSDAR." It adds that the restoration does not decide whether the October 10 decision was ultimately valid, and that it does not prevent the Society from pursuing future discipline under its own governing documents and the law.⁵
Its findings are also preliminary. A temporary restraining order exists to hold things in place until a hearing, and the court found only that the chapter had shown a probable right to relief, the threshold for such an order, on two questions. The first is whether the disbandment by itself requires dissolving the separate Texas corporation, or entitles either society to its management or property. The second is whether the procedures leading to the disbandment were adequate. On that question, the court accepted that the Society had not identified specific disciplinary charges in advance or given the chapter a meaningful chance to answer them.⁶ The court also found that members who transfer to other chapters by the November 9 deadline might not be able to return promptly if the chapter wins, because the bylaws generally allow one transfer a year. The chapter's October 19 appeal had raised the same concern.⁷
Three features of the document need to be discussed for reading those findings fairly. First, it is the chapter's own proposed order. Its title still reads "Proposed Order," and the date, time, bond, and hearing details were filled in by hand before the judge signed it. That is routine practice in Texas courts, but it means the findings' wording is the chapter's lawyers', adopted by the court.
Second, the findings rest on the chapter's verified, sworn account.
Third, the order recites that the societies had notice and an opportunity to be heard: the chapter's counsel emailed notice at about 9:58 a.m. on November 2, and the judge signed later that afternoon. The order does not say whether the Society responded in between.⁸
These findings do not address the Society's process question. In its October 27 letter, it argued that its bylaws provide no charging or hearing procedure for chapters like the one for individual members, and that the chapter declined to answer much of what it was asked.⁹ If the Society appears on November 9, that is presumably where it will make the argument.
The day in sequence
November 2 moved quickly. The chapter filed its petition at 8:44 a.m.¹⁰ Its counsel emailed notice to the two societies at about 9:58 a.m. The Daily Wire's exclusive went online shortly before 11 a.m. Eastern,¹¹ and Heritage announced the suit on X at 12:15 p.m. Eastern.¹² The proposed order was filed at 2:24 p.m., and the judge signed it at 3:37 p.m.¹ (The court's times are local, Central time.) From filing to signed order took less than seven hours. As of this writing, I have found no news coverage of the order itself.
The third venue's first result
My earlier dispatch described a dispute that has moved from the Society's own Continental Congress to Capitol Hill and then to a courthouse. The court protected the chapter's property and paused its disbandment on questions of process and corporate law, and it expressly declined to say anything about who may belong to the DAR. That question remains where the bylaws put it, with the Society's members. Remember, H.R. 9701 would have Congress answer this question, and this court set it aside.¹³
What we don't know yet
This remains a developing story. These are the open questions, and I will answer each in a dated update as the record allows.
Has the order taken effect? It requires the chapter to post a $100 bond before a writ issues, and it binds the societies once they receive actual notice. Whether the bond has been posted, the writ issued, or the societies served is not yet public.
Has the Society complied? The order gave the National Society one business day after actual notice to restore the chapter. Whether it has done so is still unknown.
What happens on November 9? The restraining order expires at 9 a.m., the moment the hearing begins. If the court grants a temporary injunction, the protections continue while the case proceeds. If it does not, they end that morning.
Will the societies appear, and what will they argue? Neither has responded publicly to the lawsuit or the order.
Will members transfer anyway? The order does not undo voluntary transfers, and the Society's November 9 transfer deadline falls on the same day as the hearing.
Update, November 7, 2026:
Three things have happened since this was published, and together they answer part of the above open questions.
On the afternoon of November 3, the chapter’s counsel asked the district clerk to issue writs of temporary restraining order to both societies. The request states that the required security had been deposited with the clerk.¹⁴ The bond, then, has been posted. The filings I have seen do not show whether the writs were issued and served, or whether the National Society has restored the chapter.
That evening, counsel filed a notice confirming the temporary-injunction hearing for November 9 at 9 a.m., in District Courtroom A of the Titus County Courthouse Annex in Mount Pleasant. The notice was emailed to three attorneys at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, who represent both societies.¹⁵ That is the Society’s first visible step in the case. It is not a response on the merits, and neither society has commented publicly.
On November 5, the Heritage Foundation’s Legal Action Center, which represents the chapter, announced the order in a statement from senior litigation counsel Lea Patterson. The statement calls the order an important victory for members who stood up for “the principle that a women’s organization should be for women.” It describes the disbandment as an attempt to silence and punish members, and to take the chapter’s assets without a fair process.¹⁶ Patterson used the same wording about a women’s organization in her comments to the Daily Wire on November 2.¹¹
The court found that the chapter had shown a probable right to relief on its property and process claims, based on the chapter’s own sworn account. It made no finding about the Society’s motives. And it granted relief expressly “not to decide NSDAR’s substantive membership-eligibility policies or the final legality of the disbandment.”⁵ The Society has said the disbandment followed a finding that chapter officers used the chapter’s name, positions, communications, and governance processes to advance a separate advocacy organization, and it has denied that the decision was about their views.¹⁷
I will cover the November 9 hearing in a new post.
Notes
Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Setting Hearing on Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Injunction, Martha Laird Chapter NSDAR v. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution and Texas Society Daughters of the American Revolution, Inc., Cause No. 44639 (76th Dist. Ct., Titus Cnty., Tex., filed November 2, 2026, 2:24 p.m.; signed 2 November 2026, 3:37 p.m.) (hereafter Order).
Order, "Restraints Preserving Corporate Property and Governance," (a)–(d).
Order, "Mandatory Provisional Restoration of Chapter Status," (a)–(d).
Order, ¶ 9.
Order, ¶ 8 and "Mandatory Provisional Restoration of Chapter Status."
Order, ¶¶ 4, 6.
Order, ¶ 7; Lani Hightower to Ginnie Sebastian Storage and Marguerite Fritsch, October 19, 2026, in Plaintiff's Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Application for Temporary Injunction, and Request for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Martha Laird Chapter NSDAR v. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution and Texas Society Daughters of the American Revolution, Inc., Cause No. 44639 (76th Dist. Ct., Titus Cnty., Tex., filed 2 November 2026, 8:44 a.m.) (hereafter Petition), Exh. O, https://static.heritage.org/2026/MarthaLaird-Petition.pdf.
Order, "Notice and Emergency Findings."
Storage and Fritsch to Lani Hightower, 27 October 2026, Petition, Exh. P.
Petition, clerk's file stamp.
Megan Brock, "They Fought to Keep Men Out of Historic Women's Org. Now They're Fighting Forced Dissolution," Daily Wire, 2 November 2026, https://www.dailywire.com/news/they-fought-to-keep-men-out-of-historic-womens-org-now-theyre-fighting-forced-dissolution.
The Heritage Foundation (@Heritage), "Today, our Legal Action Center sued the national Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) organization . . . ," X, 2 November 2026, 12:15 p.m.; screenshot captured 4:32 p.m. EST, in the author's files.
Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Integrity Act, H.R. 9701, 119th Cong. (2026), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr9701ih/html/BILLS-119hr9701ih.htm.
Request for Issuance of Writ of Temporary Restraining Order, Martha Laird Chapter NSDAR v. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Cause No. 44639 (76th Dist. Ct., Titus Cnty., Tex., filed 3 November 2026, 4:10 p.m.).
Notice of Hearing and Certificate of Service, Martha Laird Chapter NSDAR v. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Cause No. 44639 (76th Dist. Ct., Titus Cnty., Tex., filed 3 November 2026, 7:12 p.m.).
The Heritage Foundation, “Heritage Legal Action Center Praises Temporary Court Order Restoring Texas DAR Chapter,” statement, 5 November 2026, https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-legal-action-center-praises-temporary-court-order-restoring-texas-dar-chapter.
“Daughters of the American Revolution Axes Chapter That Challenged Transgender Membership,” Fox News, 11 October 2026, https://www.foxnews.com/media/daughters-american-revolution-axes-chapter-challenged-transgender-membership.
