Dallas Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Police Funding Violations

Attorney General Ken Paxton sues city over HERO amendment compliance

Published on Feb. 15, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The city of Dallas is facing a lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and two Dallas residents over alleged violations of the city's HERO amendment, which requires the city to dedicate at least 50% of excess unrestricted revenues to the police and firefighters' pension fund. The lawsuit claims the city miscalculated revenues and improperly classified funds as restricted, effectively bypassing the charter amendment's obligations.

Why it matters

The HERO amendment was passed by Dallas voters to increase police funding and staffing, but the lawsuit alleges the city has not upheld its requirements. This raises questions about the city's commitment to public safety and whether it is properly allocating resources as mandated by the voter-approved charter change.

The details

The lawsuit names Dallas City Manager Kimberly Tolbert and CFO Jack Ireland as defendants, along with the city itself. It claims the city failed to complete a mandatory third-party salary survey of comparable police departments in North Texas. The plaintiffs argue there are $80.2 million in funds that were improperly classified as restricted, rather than being used to boost police funding as required.

  • The lawsuit was filed on Friday, February 10, 2026.

The players

Ken Paxton

The Attorney General of Texas who filed the lawsuit against the city of Dallas.

Kimberly Tolbert

The Dallas City Manager named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Jack Ireland

The Dallas Chief Financial Officer named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.