Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a challenge to temporary closures of Boca Chica Beach in Cameron County, Texas, which were authorized to accommodate nearby rocket launches by SpaceX. Plaintiffs, several nonprofit organizations, alleged that the closures interfered with their members’ right to access the beach, a right protected under the Texas Constitution and the Open Beaches Act. They sought declaratory relief, claiming that the statutes permitting these closures conflicted with Article I, Section 33 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees public access to Texas beaches.The respondents originally filed suit in district court against the Texas General Land Office, its commissioner, Cameron County, and the Texas Attorney General. The defendants responded with pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs, as private parties, lacked standing and that the governmental defendants were immune from suit because Section 33(d) of the Texas Constitution expressly states it does not create a private right of enforcement. The trial court agreed and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas reversed, holding that at least one plaintiff had standing, and concluded that it was not necessary to determine whether the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims were facially valid before deciding the question of immunity.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Article I, Section 33(d) of the Texas Constitution precludes private enforcement of the public’s right of access to beaches, limiting enforcement authority to governmental actors. Because the claims were brought solely by private parties, they were deemed facially invalid, and the governmental defendants’ immunity from suit remained intact. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "PAXTON v. SaveRGV" on Justia Law

A Texas city created a local government corporation to finance public improvements in a designated district. The corporation borrowed $17.4 million from a Wisconsin bond issuer, which funded the construction of improvements, with the city agreeing to purchase those improvements over time using assessments levied within the district. The financing structure involved a promissory note and other contracts, but the corporation did not submit these documents to the Texas Attorney General for required examination and approval. After a change in city leadership and financial difficulties, the city and corporation sued the bondholder and related parties, arguing that the failure to obtain Attorney General approval rendered the transaction void and that the financing arrangement violated provisions of the Public Improvement District (PID) Act.The trial court (District Court of Williamson County) granted summary judgment for the bondholder and other defendants, holding that while submission to the Attorney General was required, failure to do so did not void the transaction. The court also determined that the PID Act had not been violated, and it rejected challenges to certain evidence and to the award of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, agreeing that the note and contracts were not void and that statutory requirements regarding bond issuance did not apply to the transaction.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that failing to submit the promissory note and supporting contracts to the Attorney General removes the statutory defense of incontestability but does not render the transaction void or unenforceable. It further held that the transaction did not violate the PID Act because the relevant restrictions applied only to bonds issued by the city or its corporation, which was not the case here. The court also found no reversible error regarding evidentiary rulings or the award of attorney’s fees. View "RIVER CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PRESTON HOLLOW CAPITAL, LLC" on Justia Law

The case concerns landowners whose property in Harris County, Texas, was condemned by the State for a highway project. After initially offering compensation, the State initiated condemnation proceedings, and the parties settled on a value for the property. Years later, the planned highway route was altered, leaving a portion of the condemned land unused. When the State indicated that some of the property was now considered surplus but refused to sell it back, the landowners assigned their rights to JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC, to pursue a statutory right of repurchase under Texas law.JRJ filed suit in a Harris County civil court at law against the State of Texas and the Director of Right of Way, asserting a statutory right to repurchase the surplus property. The State responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and lack of justiciability. The trial court granted the State’s plea and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas reversed the dismissal as to the repurchase claim, holding that the State’s sovereign immunity was waived for such claims, that the property had been acquired “through eminent domain,” and that the county court at law had jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. It held that the State is not immune from statutory repurchase claims arising under Chapter 21 of the Texas Property Code when condemned property is no longer necessary for public use. The court clarified that property acquired through a condemnation suit, even if settled before judgment, is acquired “through eminent domain.” It also held that a landowner may repurchase only the portion of property no longer necessary for public use and that county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction over these claims. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "THE STATE OF TEXAS v. JRJ PUSOK HOLDINGS, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute arose after the City approved a light rail project and formed a corporation, Austin Transit Partnership (ATP), to implement it. Voters approved a tax increase to fund the endeavor, and ATP—not the City—planned to issue municipal bonds. Taxpayers challenged ATP’s authority to issue these bonds, leading the City and ATP to seek a declaratory judgment confirming their power to assess taxes and issue bonds. The Attorney General, participating as permitted by statute, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, contending neither the City nor ATP qualified as an “issuer” under the statute governing expedited declaratory judgment actions.In the District Court, the City and ATP sought a quick resolution so the project could proceed, while the taxpayers and Attorney General desired delay. ATP’s counsel advised the court not to rule on the Attorney General’s plea to the jurisdiction, thus avoiding an interlocutory appeal and the associated automatic stay. The court accepted this suggestion, explicitly refusing to rule on the plea and moving forward toward trial. The Attorney General then filed a notice of interlocutory appeal, arguing the court’s actions amounted to an implicit denial. The trial court reiterated it had not ruled, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth District dismissed the appeal, finding no order granting or denying the plea and therefore no appellate jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case, holding that a trial court must rule on jurisdictional challenges before proceeding to the merits and cannot strategically avoid issuing a ruling to frustrate the government’s appellate rights. Because the absence of a ruling deprived the State of its statutory right to interlocutory appeal, and no adequate remedy by appeal existed, the Court treated the Attorney General’s petition as a request for mandamus and conditionally granted relief, directing the trial court to rule on the plea to the jurisdiction. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was left undisturbed. View "PAXTON v. THE CITY OF AUSTIN" on Justia Law

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

A company providing paratransit and microtransit services under contract with a regional public transportation authority subcontracted another company to supply vehicles and drivers. After several months, the subcontractor terminated the agreement and brought suit against the transportation company and the authority, asserting claims including breach of contract, quantum meruit, tortious interference, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The fraud claim centered on alleged false representations made to induce the subcontract.The trial court (Texas District Court) ruled on a motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which allows dismissal if pleadings show no legal or factual basis for relief. The court dismissed the fraud and other tort claims against all defendants, as well as the breach of contract claim against the transportation authority and its primary contractor. It limited potential contract damages as to the contractor’s subsidiary and severed and abated remaining claims. The subcontractor appealed the dismissal of its claims against the main transportation company.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed in part, finding that the breach of contract and fraud claims against the main transportation company had a basis in law and that its statutory immunity under Texas Transportation Code § 452.056(d) was not conclusively established. The Supreme Court of Texas, reviewing only the fraud claim, held that the statutory immunity did apply. Because the pleadings showed the transportation company was contractually performing the authority’s function, and the authority itself would be immune from a fraud claim (an intentional tort), the company was likewise immune from liability for fraud. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the fraud claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining claims. View "MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. GDS TRANSPORT, LLC" 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

A group of businesses and consumers involved in the sale and manufacture of consumable hemp products containing manufactured delta-8 THC challenged actions taken by the Texas Department of State Health Services and its commissioner. Following federal and state legislative changes in 2018 and 2019 that removed “hemp” and certain tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) in hemp from the definition of controlled substances, the Texas commissioner objected to a federal rule that would have further decontrolled hemp-derived extracts, including delta-8 THC. The commissioner then amended the state schedules to clarify that manufactured delta-8 THC remained a Schedule I controlled substance, leading to substantial business disruption for the vendors who had entered the delta-8 market.The vendors sued in district court, arguing that the commissioner exceeded her authority both procedurally and substantively under Texas law by modifying the schedules in a way that contradicted the Texas Farm Bill, and that the Department’s website statement about delta-8 THC was an invalid rule under the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The trial court denied the Department’s plea to the jurisdiction (challenging standing and sovereign immunity) and issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of the amended schedules and the website statement. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, concluding that the vendors had standing, the claims were justiciable, and a temporary injunction was appropriate.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the vendors had standing and their claims were ripe for review. However, it concluded that the commissioner acted within her broad statutory discretion and followed proper procedures under Health & Safety Code § 481.034(g) in objecting to the federal rule and amending the schedules. The court also held that the website statement was not an APA “rule.” Accordingly, it reversed the injunction and rendered judgment for the Department, with the only affirmed portion being the finding of standing. View "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES v. SKY MARKETING CORP." on Justia Law

A state environmental agency received a broad public records request from a nonprofit organization seeking documents related to a recent assessment on ethylene oxide. The agency responded the next day, asking the organization to clarify whether it wanted confidential information, which would require a formal opinion from the state attorney general and could delay production. The requester promptly confirmed it sought all responsive records, including any considered confidential but subject to disclosure under the public records law. The agency believed many documents were exempt under a deliberative-process exception and, within what it believed to be the deadline, sent a request to the attorney general for a ruling. The attorney general later determined that the agency had missed the ten-business-day deadline by two days, so the information was presumed public unless there was a compelling reason to withhold it.The agency then provided additional evidence that it was closed on July 5 due to the Independence Day holiday, that its request was timely mailed, and that it had sought clarification from the requester. Nonetheless, the Attorney General declined to reconsider. The agency filed a declaratory judgment action in district court, and the nonprofit intervened, seeking to compel disclosure. The Office of the Attorney General later conceded its original calculation was mistaken, but the district court granted summary judgment for the nonprofit, ordering disclosure of over 6,000 pages. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, holding the request for a ruling was untimely and rejecting the agency’s arguments about deadlines and clarifications.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the ten-business-day deadline for the agency’s request was reset by its timely, good-faith request for narrowing or clarification, and that the agency established timely submission of its request under the mailbox rule. It reversed the judgments below and remanded for further proceedings to determine if the deliberative-process privilege protects the records. View "TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY v. PAXTON" on Justia Law

A municipally owned utility in San Antonio owns power poles used for distributing electricity. Since 1984, a telecommunications provider (and its predecessor) has attached its equipment to these poles under a written agreement. The contract set a per-pole attachment fee, allowed for annual rate increases, and included a clause requiring both parties to comply with all applicable laws affecting their rights and obligations under the agreement. Over time, the utility charged one telecommunications provider higher rates, while continuing to invoice another provider at the original rate, resulting in a disparity in charges. After amendments to the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) in 2005 prohibited discriminatory pole attachment rates and required uniform and federally capped rates, the provider paying the higher fee sued, seeking relief for breach of contract and statutory violations.The trial court, after abating proceedings while the Public Utility Commission (PUC) considered the matter, granted partial summary judgment for the utility on statutory and unjust enrichment claims, but for the provider on the breach-of-contract claim. The utility appealed. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the agreement did not incorporate new statutes into its terms, and thus the provider could not base its contract claim on the utility’s alleged statutory violations.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. It held that the parties’ contract—by its express terms—incorporated post-1984 legal changes affecting their rights and obligations, including the 2005 PURA amendments. The Court concluded that the provider could pursue its contract claim based on the utility’s alleged failure to comply with current law, including prohibitions on discriminatory and excessive pole attachment rates. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "SPECTRUM GULF COAST, LLC v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO" on Justia Law