Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune's daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A third person with ties to U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar's bribery case has pleaded guilty, according to a recently unsealed plea agreement, after the South Texas Democrat was accused of accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from Azerbaijan and a Mexican bank.

Irada Akhoundova pleaded guilty to unlawfully acting as an agent of the Azerbaijani government and a state-run oil company, a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, on May 1, according to the plea deal first reported by the San Antonio Express-News. Akhoundova admitted to facilitating a $60,000 payment to Imelda Cuellar, the congressman's wife, who was also indicted last month.

For nearly 20 years, Akhoundova has served as the president of the Houston-Baku Sister City Association, a nonprofit that builds ties between the Texas city and Azerbaijan's capital, according to her LinkedIn profile. The plea agreement describes Akhoundova as an active member of the Texas Azerbaijani-American community. The court filing states that she served as the director of a U.S. affiliate of a Baku-based company, from approximately 2014 to 2017.

Akhoundova is the third person publicly known to have pleaded guilty as part of the federal investigation into the Texas congressman. Cuellar's former campaign manager, Colin Strother, and another consultant, Florencio “Lencho” Rendon, pleaded guilty to charges that they helped launder more than $200,000 in bribes from a Mexican bank, according to court records.

Cuellar and his wife were indicted on April 30 on charges of accepting payments from Azerbaijan's state-run oil and gas company. The couple allegedly laundered the payments through fake consulting contracts to shell companies owned by Imelda Cuellar, according to the indictment.

In exchange, the Laredo congressman allegedly pushed U.S. policy in favor of Azerbaijan, an oil-rich former Soviet country that borders Iran and Russia on the Caspian Sea. Cuellar allegedly helped add language to defense spending legislation to prioritize ties to countries in the region, including with Azerbaijan.

Cuellar also allegedly took money from a retail Mexican bank, Banco Azteca, and influenced members of the executive branch to work around an anti-money laundering policy that threatened the bank's interests, according to the indictment.

According to Akhoundova's plea agreement, Imelda Cuellar was acting as the owner of a consulting company, when she allegedly submitted falsified invoices to a Texas-based affiliate of an Azerbaijani company — run by Akhoundova. Cuellar received the payment in December 2014, despite not having done any work for Akhoundova's company.

“Akhoundova believed that disbursing the $60,000 was in the interest of Oil Company 1 and the Government of Azerbaijan,” the plea agreement read, referring to the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The plea deal also outlines other actions Akhoundova undertook on behalf of the Azerbaijani government, including the creation of a U.S-based company.

In 2020, Akhoundova received emails from an Azerbaijani government agency to organize a campaign in the U.S. to influence the U.S. public's opinion about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Azerbaijan had been engaged in a long-running border dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave made up of largely ethnic Armenians, until Azerbaijan forcibly retook control of the territory last year. The conflict had been a significant roadblock to peace in the region since the fall of the Soviet Union, with European, American and Russian governments struggling with the issues for decades.

Akhoundova agreed to testify before any judicial proceedings, including a grand jury, and provide documents related to the federal government's investigation into Cuellar, according to the plea agreement. She faces up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine — the maximum sentence for the violation she pleaded guilty to.

The Cuellars have pleaded not guilty to all charges.

We've got big things in store for you at The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Join us for three days of big, bold conversations about politics, public policy and the day's news.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune's daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The Texas Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a case that could have Alabama-esque impacts on in vitro fertilization in Texas.

What began as a Denton divorce has grown into a larger battle over whether a frozen embryo can be defined as a person. The court has not yet said whether it will take up the case, which centers on three frozen embryos created by Caroline and Gaby Antoun.

Before beginning IVF, the couple signed an agreement saying Gaby Antoun, the husband, would get any remaining frozen embryos in case of a divorce. A trial court and appeals court have upheld the contract, citing long-standing legal precedent that embryos are quasi-property that can be governed by a contract.

But Caroline Antoun, the wife, argues that Texas' new abortion laws require frozen embryos to be treated as people and handled through the child custody process instead.

“Now that Roe is no longer law, the Court has the opportunity to reclassify embryos as unborn children rather than property, and to, after far too long, recognize and protect the rights of those unborn children and their parents,” her lawyers, who declined to comment for this story, wrote in their petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court.

Patrick Wright, the attorney representing the husband, said this case isn't about abortion.

“It's a case where two people got together and were planning for their family, and they entered into an agreement,” Wright said. “This is a family issue and if — and it's a big if — the courts are getting involved, they'd be doing essentially the thing that has been complained about for years, which is adding something that's not there.”

Earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos qualify as people under the state's wrongful death statute, leading fertility clinics to halt their work until the legislature stepped in and granted temporary protections.

While the details are different, legal experts and fertility doctors say the results of this Texas case could be similar.

“Recognizing ‘personhood' status for a frozen embryo, as requested by Petitioner, would upend IVF in Texas,” the American Society for Reproductive Medicine wrote in an amicus brief. It would “inject untenable uncertainty into whether and on what terms IVF clinics can continue to operate in Texas.”

Legal precedent

For almost as long as there has been IVF, there have been legal battles over how to handle the frozen embryos in case of divorce, death or disagreement.

In the earliest case, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that frozen embryos were neither persons nor property, but instead were in an “interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life.” Without a written contract in place, the court sided with the ex-husband, who wanted the embryos destroyed.

“The court suggests that the right not to procreate, because you cannot not be a genetic parent once it happens, is irrevocable,” said Sonia Suter, a law professor at the George Washington University. “Whereas the ex-wife could theoretically be a genetic parent, so we haven't precluded her right to be a parent.”

This issue came before the Texas courts in 2006, when a man named Randy Roman wanted the courts to uphold a signed agreement saying the embryos would be destroyed in case of divorce; his ex-wife wanted to use the embryos to have a child.

A Texas appeals court noted the “emerging majority view that written embryo agreements … are valid and enforceable,” and found that honoring these contracts “best serves the existing public policy of this State and the interests of the parties.”

In siding with Randy Roman, the judges invited lawmakers to clarify this issue if they saw fit; in the nearly two decades since, the Legislature has not taken it up. The Texas Supreme Court declined to review Roman v. Roman, so years later, when the Antouns went to the Denton County courthouse, this was the most recent state court precedent.

The Antouns married in 2014 and began IVF five years later. They implanted three embryos, resulting in two children and one miscarriage, and three remained frozen. The couple separated in 2021 and divorced in 2022. While they successfully mediated the other aspects of their divorce, including custody of their two children, they ended up going to court over the frozen embryos.

That hearing was on June 29, 2022, five days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Caroline Antoun's lawyers asked the judge to delay the case until the impact of the ruling was clearer, but the judge declined and upheld the contract, awarding the embryos to Gaby Antoun.

Two months later, Texas' near-total abortion ban went into effect. That same day, Caroline Antoun asked the court for a new trial, contending the law had changed in a way that would change the outcome of her case. When that wasn't granted, she appealed.

Caroline Antoun's lawyers argue that Roman v. Roman was invalidated by the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and the embryos should no longer be treated as property. They cite the new abortion law, which defines an “unborn child” as “an individual living member of the homo sapiens species from fertilization until birth, including the entire embryonic and fetal stages of development.”

“Because fertilization has occurred, the embryos are unborn children and thus people as Texas defines them,” her lawyers wrote in a brief. “They are unborn children and should be treated as having all the rights and constitutional protections of children.”

Her lawyers also argued that treating frozen embryos as property was a return to the days of slavery, before “the ownership of persons became an issue relegated to history.”

“That is, until the Texas Legislature accidentally revived the conception of owning people by legislatively defining life to begin at a time antecedent to pregnancy and gestation via IVF,” they wrote, later saying, “To treat a class of persons, here embryos, as lesser humans by virtue of an immutable trait, is to repeat the mistakes of our forefathers.”

Gaby Antoun's lawyers argue that the Dobbs decision did not change anything about the legal status of frozen embryos, nor the contracts that have historically governed them.

“If they say that you can't sign these agreements, then we have a problem,” Wright said. “Because now you're saying that people can't validly contract to create their families, in their own way, with their own choices, and now the state is imposing on decisions that families are making.”

The 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth agreed, ruling that Caroline Antoun's arguments were “a classic example of taking a definition out of its legislatively created context and using it in a context that the legislature did not intend.”

“Dobbs held that the United States Constitution does not guarantee a right to an abortion,” the judges wrote. “Dobbs did not determine the rights of cryogenically stored embryos outside the human body before uterine implantation. Dobbs is not law ‘applicable' to this case, and thus its pronouncement did not justify a new trial.”

Caroline Antoun then appealed to the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court. The court asked each side to brief the case, but has not yet said whether it will take the issue up.

Future of IVF

If the Texas Supreme Court were to find that frozen embryos are people and should have all the same rights as a living child, it would raise “unimaginable” questions about the realities of IVF, Suter said.

“Even if both parties agree that they want the embryos disposed, if they're a person, can you do that?” she said. “Can you kill your kids? Can you leave them in the freezer, or donate them to research?”

Such a ruling would also throw into question any contracts fertility clinics have their clients sign, making cryopreservation “legally, financially and logistically untenable,” the American Society for Reproductive Medicine wrote in its brief.

Without the ability to freeze the embryos, fertility clinics would have to either transfer all the embryos at once, or fertilize only one egg at a time, ASMR wrote in its brief. Either option “would make IVF much more burdensome, risky, expensive and less effective,” the group wrote.

And, like in Alabama, many clinics may decide to take the legally safer route and just pause all services while the uncertainty plays out, said Clare Ryan, a family law professor at the University of Alabama law school.

“Whatever one's views are about when life begins, which are deeply held views, I think it's pretty fair to say that our current legal system as we have it just can't sustain this kind of change without a complete rethinking of how it works,” Ryan said.

Texas Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, called for the court to rule that frozen embryos are people and, in case of divorce, should be given all the same rights as living children. They rejected the idea that this would lead to a shutdown of IVF in Texas.

“Because this case would only set precedent for custody disputes of frozen unborn children in divorce cases, a decision abrogating Roman would have a much smaller impact than the Alabama case,” they wrote in an amicus brief.

In their briefs, Gaby Antoun's lawyers argue this is a question best left to the Legislature, an idea Ryan echoes.

“The cases before the courts are so dependent on specific facts of the case, even if the implications extend far beyond it,” she said. “Whereas legislatures … have the ability to look at things more comprehensively and address, if we change this definition, what does that do for all these other areas of law.”

After the Alabama ruling, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signaled his support for families that get pregnant through IVF, and said he had “no doubt” the Legislature would take steps to ensure that remained an option.

“Texas is a pro-life state, and we want to do everything possible that we can to maintain Texas being a pro-life state,” Abbott told CNN at the time. “But at the very same time … we as a state want to ensure that we promote life, we bring more life into the world and we empower parents to be able to have more children.”

IVF gets “exceptionalized,” Suter said, in conservative circles, especially as more families come to rely on assistive technologies to conceive. The Alabama legislature moved swiftly to restore access to the procedure after the court ruling — but many legal experts say this temporary legislation didn't address the significant questions that remain.

“This issue, more than any other, really, highlights the tension between pro-birth policies and ones that are more focused on treating every embryo as a person,” Ryan said. “Going down the path of treating cryopreserved embryos as persons will inevitably reduce the number of people who can get pregnant and have children through IVF.”

We've got big things in store for you at The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Join us for three days of big, bold conversations about politics, public policy and the day's news.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune's daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

WASHINGTON — Texans in Congress are threatening federal funds for Mexico, escalating a dispute over Mexico's obligations to deliver water to the United States.

A bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers are demanding House and Senate appropriators withhold funds for the country until Mexico lives up to its end of a 1944 water treaty that requires it to send 1.75 million acre-feet to the U.S. every five years. Mexico has until October of next year to fulfill the requirement, but has more than 700,000 acre-feet left to deliver, according to the International Boundary and Water Commission (Acre-feet is the amount of water needed to fill one acre of land with one foot of water.)

The inconsistent deliveries from Mexico have exacerbated water shortages impacting South Texas farmers, the lawmakers say. The Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers sugar mill had to close in February due to repeated water shortages after 50 years. It was the last sugar mill in Texas employing over 500 workers. Hidalgo County had to extend a drought disaster declaration in April.

“Farmers and ranchers across South Texas remain under continued financial strain and could suffer a similar fate as the sugar industry, should Mexico continue withholding water,” the lawmakers wrote in a Friday letter to House and Senate appropriators.

They continued: “As efforts at negotiating a reasonable compromise between our countries have failed to produce an amenable solution for our constituents, we urge you and your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to withhold designated funds from Mexico until Mexico has agreed to provide more reliable and consistent water deliveries to the United States.”

Mexico asserts it is limited in its ability to deliver water due to drought conditions on its side of the border. It has technically not violated the terms of the treaty because it does not require water to be released in even intervals during the five-year period.

The lawmakers' Friday letter does not specify what kind of federal funds to Mexico should be impacted. The U.S. government committed over $138 million in assistance to Mexico in the last fiscal year.

Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and U.S. Reps. Monica De La Cruz, R-McAllen; Vicente Gonzalez, D-McAllen; Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo; Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Nathaniel Moran, R-Tyler; Ronny Jackson, R-Amarillo; Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock; and Keith Self, R-McKinney all signed on. Cuellar and Gonzales are both on the House Appropriations Committee.

Texans on the border have been highlighting the water treaty in Congress and with the White House for months.

Cornyn has repeatedly pushed the point with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Cruz and Cornyn said in a February statement that “The U.S. must use every diplomatic tool at its disposal to ensure Mexico's compliance. We will continue to look for ways to support South Texas's agriculture community, which is suffering from a lack of water.”

There is only so much Congress can do to enforce a treaty already on the books. The State Department is largely responsible for negotiating more water to be released.

Gov. Greg Abbott has similarly pushed the issue. Officials from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality negotiated with the Mexican government in 2020 along with the Trump administration to push Mexico to release its water before the end of the last five-year cycle.

Mexico has also had its own complaints about the treaty. The country's government has said Abbott's use of floating buoys to deter migrants from crossing the Rio Grande violated the terms of the treaty because the buoys were potentially on the Mexican side of the river.

Mexico and the United States ratified the 1944 treaty to equitably distribute water from the Rio Grande and to cooperate in managing its flow.

We've got big things in store for you at The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Join us for three days of big, bold conversations about politics, public policy and the day's news.