Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of members of the Texas House of Representatives left the state in August 2025 to prevent the House from reaching the two-thirds quorum required to conduct business. Their absence was intended to block the passage of redistricting legislation. After approximately two weeks, the absent members voluntarily returned, restoring the quorum and allowing the legislation to proceed. The Governor subsequently signed the redistricting bill into law, and the state began conducting elections under the new district lines.In response to the walkout, the Governor and the Attorney General filed petitions for writs of quo warranto with the Supreme Court of Texas, seeking to remove certain absent legislators from office. They argued that by intentionally leaving the state to prevent the House from functioning, those members had abandoned or forfeited their offices. The accused legislators, in turn, contended that quorum-breaking is a legitimate legislative tactic and does not constitute abandonment or forfeiture of office. While the House itself employed limited disciplinary measures during the walkout, including withholding financial resources from absent members, it did not expel any member or seek judicial intervention.The Supreme Court of Texas denied the petitions for writs of quo warranto. The Court held that the Texas Constitution assigns the power to compel the attendance of absent legislators and discipline members to each legislative house, not to the courts. The Court emphasized that political mechanisms provided by the Constitution were sufficient to address the situation and that judicial intervention was unwarranted. The Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction over the petitions and did not resolve whether a judicial remedy might ever be available in similar circumstances. The petitions were denied. View "IN RE STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 8, which created a private civil enforcement mechanism for certain abortion restrictions, the Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity’s deputy director made a sworn statement indicating the Fund had paid for abortions potentially in violation of that law. In response, Sadie Weldon filed a Rule 202 petition in Jack County seeking to depose the deputy director and obtain documents related to possible violations of the statute. While Weldon's petition was pending, the Lilith Fund initiated a lawsuit against Weldon, seeking a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional, as well as injunctive relief to prevent Weldon from pursuing related legal actions.The trial court denied Weldon’s Rule 202 petition, and Weldon subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Lilith Fund’s suit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which aims to quickly dispose of lawsuits that chill the exercise of free speech, association, or petition. The trial court did not rule on Weldon’s TCPA motion, resulting in its denial by operation of law. Weldon appealed, but the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the denial, holding that the TCPA did not apply because the Fund’s suit was not “based on or in response to” Weldon’s Rule 202 petition.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the TCPA does apply. The Court found that the Fund’s legal action was indeed “based on or in response to” Weldon’s exercise of her right to petition, as her Rule 202 petition was a protected activity under the statute and the Fund’s lawsuit sought relief directly connected to that petition. As a result, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings under the remaining steps of the TCPA analysis. View "WELDON v. THE LILITH FUND FOR REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY" on Justia Law

The case centers on an economic development agreement between a city and county in Texas and a private foundation, aimed at fostering the construction of a retail shopping center anchored by a Gander Mountain store. The city and county pledged portions of future sales-tax revenues to the foundation, which used the funds to secure a construction loan for the facility. The agreements required that the tax proceeds be used solely to repay the construction debt. Gander Mountain operated for eleven years before closing its store, but the shopping center continued to generate significant economic activity and tax revenue, with the former anchor tenant’s space later occupied by another retailer.After Gander Mountain’s closure in 2015, the city and county ceased payments, claiming the public purpose of the grants had ended. They sought declaratory relief in the District Court of Navarro County, arguing that continued payments would be unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clauses. The district court granted summary judgment to the city and county, ruling that the closure ended the public purpose and that the agreements lacked sufficient controls to ensure public purposes were met. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of Texas affirmed, holding that the economic development grants remained subject to the Gift Clauses and that the agreements failed to satisfy their requirements.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that economic-development grants authorized by article III, section 52-a of the Texas Constitution remain subject to the Gift Clauses. The Court determined that the lower courts erred by focusing narrowly on the operation of a specific store rather than the broader public purpose of economic development. It held that the agreements likely satisfied the constitutional requirements of public purpose, consideration, and adequate controls, and that summary judgment was improper. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. CITY OF CORSICANA AND NAVARRO COUNTY" on Justia Law

RJR Vapor, a company selling oral nicotine products in Texas, including VELO nicotine pouches, sought a tax refund after paying the Texas Cigars and Tobacco Products Tax under protest. VELO pouches consist of a porous material filled with a dry mixture of microcrystalline cellulose (a plant-based substance) and nicotine isolate, along with flavorings and preservatives. Unlike traditional tobacco pouches, which use ground tobacco leaf, VELO uses non-tobacco plant matter combined with nicotine extracted from tobacco leaves. The key legal question was whether these pouches qualify as “tobacco products” under Texas Tax Code, specifically as products “made of tobacco or a tobacco substitute.”After RJR paid the tax and filed suit, the trial court ruled in RJR’s favor, finding that VELO pouches are not taxable tobacco products and granting a refund. The trial court also found the statutory phrase “made of tobacco or a tobacco substitute” unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, agreeing that VELO pouches are neither “made of tobacco” nor “made of . . . a tobacco substitute,” and declined to reach RJR’s constitutional challenges, considering them moot because the products were not taxable.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and reversed the decision of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that VELO pouches are “made of . . . a tobacco substitute” because their primary ingredients—plant matter and nicotine—take the place and function of tobacco in products expressly taxed by the statute, such as snus or moist snuff. The Court rendered judgment that VELO pouches are taxable tobacco products under Texas law and remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider RJR’s equal-and-uniform constitutional challenge to the tax. View "HANCOCK v. RJR VAPOR CO., LLC" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature enacted a law banning certain medical treatments for minors for the purpose of gender transition, PFLAG, Inc., a nonprofit organization with Texas members, became involved in litigation challenging the law. During this litigation, PFLAG’s executive director submitted an affidavit describing, among other things, how families sought “alternative avenues to maintain care” for transgender youth in Texas. The Office of the Attorney General, suspecting that some medical providers might be concealing violations of the new law through deceptive billing practices, issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to PFLAG seeking documents underlying the affidavit and related information. PFLAG declined to produce the documents and instead petitioned the 261st Judicial District Court in Travis County to set aside or modify the CID. The Attorney General subsequently narrowed the scope of the CID to exclude identifying information of PFLAG’s members and focused the requests more closely on the affidavit’s content.The district court granted a temporary restraining order and, after a trial, issued a final declaratory judgment and injunction largely protecting PFLAG from producing the requested documents. The district court focused its analysis on the original, broader CID and found that the Attorney General lacked a valid basis to believe PFLAG possessed relevant information. The court also concluded that the CID infringed on constitutional rights and failed to comply with statutory requirements.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the district court erred in analyzing only the original CID and not the revised version. The Supreme Court clarified that the Attorney General’s statutory authority to issue a CID requires only a reasonable belief, not proof, that the recipient may have relevant material. The Court found the Attorney General’s belief reasonable given the content of the affidavit and ruled that PFLAG must produce most responsive documents, subject to privilege and redaction of identifying information. The district court’s order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PFLAG, INC." on Justia Law

A candidate for Congress, who holds both a medical degree and a law degree but is not licensed to practice medicine, referred to himself as “Dr. Gonzalez” and a “physician” during his campaign. The Texas Medical Board (TMB) received a complaint alleging that these statements constituted the unlicensed practice of medicine and improper use of professional titles. After an investigation and hearing, TMB determined that the candidate had violated the Medical Practice Act and the Healing Art Identification Act, issuing a cease-and-desist order prohibiting him from using the titles “doctor,” “physician,” or “Dr.” without clarifying his lack of a medical license. The candidate challenged the order, arguing both statutory and constitutional grounds, including that the statutes violated his free speech rights.The Travis County District Court dismissed all of the candidate’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the dismissal of most claims, holding that the redundant-remedies doctrine barred his ultra vires and as-applied constitutional claims because he could have sought relief through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the appellate court remanded his facial constitutional challenge to the district court for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the redundant-remedies doctrine did not bar the candidate’s ultra vires and as-applied constitutional claims, because the relief he sought—declaratory and injunctive relief against future enforcement—went beyond what the APA could provide. The court affirmed the dismissal of his substantial-evidence claim for lack of jurisdiction, as there was no statutory basis for judicial review outside the APA. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the facial constitutional, as-applied constitutional, and ultra vires claims. View "GONZALEZ v. TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD" on Justia Law

Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, believe that certain religious services must be conducted at a specific site within Brackenridge Park in San Antonio, Texas. The City of San Antonio planned improvements to the park, including tree removal and bird deterrence, which Perez and Torres argued would destroy their sacred worship space. They sued the City, claiming violations of their religious rights under the First Amendment, the Texas Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and a new clause in the Texas Constitution that prohibits limiting religious services.The federal district court granted limited relief, allowing the Church access for certain ceremonies but did not enjoin the City's improvement plans. Perez appealed, and the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's decision but later withdrew its opinion and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the scope and force of the new Texas Religious Services Clause.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Texas Religious Services Clause imposes a categorical bar on governmental limitations of religious services, regardless of the government's interest in the limitation. However, the Court also concluded that the scope of the clause is not unlimited and does not extend to the government's preservation and management of publicly owned lands. The Court emphasized that the clause does not require the government to provide or maintain natural elements necessary for religious services on public property. The case was remanded to the federal courts for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "PEREZ v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO" on Justia Law

The Texas Attorney General alleged that Annunciation House, a nonprofit organization in El Paso, was unlawfully harboring illegal aliens. The Attorney General sought to examine the organization's records and initiate quo warranto proceedings, which could lead to the revocation of its charter. Annunciation House, which provides shelter to immigrants and refugees, was served with a records request by state officials, who demanded immediate compliance. Annunciation House sought legal relief, arguing that the request violated its constitutional rights.The 205th Judicial District Court in El Paso County granted a temporary restraining order and later a temporary injunction against the Attorney General's records request. The court also denied the Attorney General's motion for leave to file a quo warranto action, ruling that the statutes authorizing the records request were unconstitutional and that the allegations of harboring illegal aliens did not constitute a valid basis for quo warranto. The court further held that the statutes were preempted by federal law and violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case on direct appeal. The court held that the trial court erred in its constitutional rulings and that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action. The court emphasized that it was too early to express a view on the merits of the underlying issues and that the usual litigation process should unfold. The court also held that the statutes authorizing the records request were not facially unconstitutional and that the trial court's injunction against the Attorney General's records request was improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "PAXTON v. ANNUNCIATION HOUSE, INC." on Justia Law

Two property owners in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of College Station, Texas, challenged city ordinances regulating off-premise signage and driveway construction. They argued that these regulations, imposed without granting them the right to vote in city elections, violated the Texas Constitution's requirement for a "republican form of government." The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the ordinances were void and unenforceable.The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, agreeing with the City that the form of local government is a political question for the legislature, not the courts. The plaintiffs appealed, but while the appeal was pending, the legislature amended the law to allow ETJ residents to unilaterally opt out of a city's ETJ. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's dismissal, not addressing the new statutory opt-out provision.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the legislative change provided a nonjudicial remedy that could moot the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. The court vacated the lower court judgments and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to abate the proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to complete the opt-out process. The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance, noting that the new law offered a means of relief that should be pursued before addressing broader constitutional questions. View "ELLIOTT v. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS" on Justia Law

Christine Stary and Brady Ethridge divorced in 2018 and agreed to share custody of their three children. In March 2020, Stary was arrested and charged with felony injury to a child, but the charges were dismissed in February 2025. Ethridge applied for a civil protective order a week after Stary's arrest, alleging family violence and seeking an order lasting longer than two years. The trial court issued a temporary order preventing Stary from contacting her children. At the hearing, Ethridge testified about instances of Stary injuring the children, supported by medical records. Stary denied the allegations and testified on her own behalf. The trial court found that Stary committed felony family violence and issued a lifetime protective order prohibiting all contact between Stary and her children.The trial court's decision was appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the order. The appellate court held that a lifetime protective order prohibiting a parent from contacting her children is not equivalent to terminating parental rights and does not require heightened procedural safeguards. One justice dissented, arguing that the order effectively terminated Stary's parental rights.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that constitutional due process requires clear and convincing evidence to support a protective order prohibiting contact between a parent and her children for longer than two years. The court emphasized that such orders profoundly interfere with a parent's fundamental right to care, custody, and control of their children. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, requiring the trial court to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard and consider the best interest of the children. View "STARY v. ETHRIDGE" on Justia Law