Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Robert Roberson, a death-row inmate, was scheduled for execution on October 17, 2024. On October 16, 2024, the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence issued a subpoena requiring Roberson to testify on October 21, 2024, creating a conflict between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. The judicial branch had affirmed Roberson's sentence, and the executive branch had declined clemency. The committee sought to delay the execution to obtain Roberson's testimony, claiming legislative authority to compel testimony superseded the scheduled execution.The committee filed a lawsuit in a state district court, which granted a temporary restraining order to delay the execution. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (the department) sought relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which set aside the restraining order. The committee then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus to enforce the subpoena and delay the execution.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the legislative committee's authority to compel testimony does not override the scheduled legal process leading to an execution. The court emphasized the separation of powers, noting that the legislature's investigatory power must be balanced against the judiciary's authority to render judgments and the executive's authority to enforce them. The court held that the committee could have obtained Roberson's testimony earlier and that the legislative subpoena could not disrupt the execution process. Consequently, the court denied the committee's petition for writ of mandamus, allowing the execution to proceed as scheduled. View "IN RE TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" on Justia Law

Dallas County sued state officials in Travis County, alleging that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) failed to take custody of criminal defendants adjudicated incompetent to stand trial, imposing costs on the County. The district court denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction, leading to an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals. However, due to legislative changes, this appeal is set to be transferred to the newly created Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over certain state-related cases.The Third Court of Appeals could not resolve the appeal before its mandatory transfer to the Fifteenth Court. Dallas County preferred to remain in the Third Court and petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas to bar the transfer and declare the legislation creating the Fifteenth Court unconstitutional. The County argued that the Fifteenth Court’s statewide jurisdiction, its jurisdictional scope, and the appointment process for its justices were unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that it had jurisdiction over Dallas County’s petition. The Court concluded that the creation of the Fifteenth Court was constitutional. It found that the Texas Constitution allows the legislature substantial discretion in creating courts and defining their jurisdiction. The Court also held that the appointment process for the Fifteenth Court’s justices, who will be appointed initially and then elected in the next general election, was constitutional. Consequently, the Court denied Dallas County’s request for relief, meaning the appeal must be transferred to the Fifteenth Court as scheduled. View "IN RE DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND BROWN" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case involving a new law that prohibits certain medical treatments for children if administered for the purpose of transitioning a child's biological sex or affirming the child's perception of their sex if it is inconsistent with their biological sex. Several parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and groups that would be affected by the law, sued to enjoin its enforcement, alleging that it is facially unconstitutional. The trial court concluded that the law likely violates the Texas Constitution and temporarily enjoined the law's enforcement.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the trial court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief on their claims that the prohibition of certain treatments for children suffering from gender dysphoria violates the Texas Constitution. The court emphasized that while parents have a fundamental interest in directing the care, custody, and control of their children, this interest is not absolute. The court concluded that the Legislature made a permissible, rational policy choice to limit the types of available medical procedures for children, particularly in light of the relative nascency of both gender dysphoria and its various modes of treatment. The court also concluded that the law does not unconstitutionally deprive parents of their rights or physicians or health care providers of an alleged property right in their medical licenses or claimed right to occupational freedom. The court further concluded that the law does not unconstitutionally deny or abridge equality under the law because of sex or any other characteristic asserted by plaintiffs. The court therefore reversed and vacated the trial court's order. View "STATE OF TEXAS v. LOE" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a provision in a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Austin and the Austin Firefighters Association. The provision, known as Article 10, grants 5,600 hours of "Association Business Leave" (ABL) annually for firefighters to conduct union-related activities. The petitioners, including the State of Texas and several individuals, argued that Article 10 violates the "Gift Clauses" of the Texas Constitution, which prohibit governmental entities from making gifts of public resources to private parties. They contended that the ABL provision improperly benefits the union by allowing firefighters to use paid time off for union activities, some of which they alleged were misused for improper purposes.The case was initially dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), with the trial court granting relief to the Association, including the award of fees and sanctions. On appeal, the trial court's findings of fact went unchallenged, and the focus was primarily on whether the agreement itself violated the Gift Clauses.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Article 10 does not violate the Gift Clauses. The court found that the provision is not a gratuitous gift but brings a public benefit, serves a legitimate public purpose, and the government retains control over the funds to ensure that the public purpose is achieved. The court emphasized that the ABL must be used for activities that directly support the mission of the Fire Department or the Association and are consistent with the Association’s purposes. The court also reversed the trial court's order granting the Association's TCPA motion to dismiss and its award of sanctions and fees against the original plaintiffs. View "BORGELT v. AUSTIN FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 975" on Justia Law

The case involves Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Texas, who announced that due to her religious beliefs, she would not perform weddings for same-sex couples but would refer them to others who would. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued her a public warning for casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially due to the person's sexual orientation, in violation of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Hensley did not appeal this warning to a Special Court of Review (SCR) but instead sued the Commission and its members and officers for violating the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) and her right to freedom of speech under Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. The trial court dismissed her claims for lack of jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Hensley's suit was not barred by her decision not to appeal the Commission’s Public Warning or by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the part of the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing one of Hensley's declaratory requests for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the remainder of the judgment, and remanded to the court of appeals to address the remaining issues on appeal. The court found that the SCR could not have finally decided whether Hensley is entitled to the relief sought in this case or awarded the relief TRFRA provides to successful claimants. View "HENSLEY v. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a program proposed by Harris County, Texas, known as "Uplift Harris." The program aimed to provide $500 monthly cash payments to 1,928 Harris County residents for 18 months, with recipients chosen by lottery from applicants with income below 200% of the federal poverty line living in certain zip codes. The State of Texas challenged the program, arguing that it violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on gratuitous payments to individuals.The State sued the County, seeking an injunction to block the implementation of the program. The district court denied the State's request for a temporary injunction, leading the State to appeal this decision and request a stay of payments under the Uplift Harris program while the appeal was ongoing. The court of appeals denied this request, prompting the State to seek mandamus relief in the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas granted the State's motion for temporary relief, prohibiting all payments under the Uplift Harris program pending further order of the court. The court found that the State had raised serious doubt about the constitutionality of the program, and that potential violation of the Texas Constitution could not be remedied if payments were to commence while the underlying appeal proceeded. The court also noted that once the funds were distributed to individuals, they could not feasibly be recouped if it was later determined they were paid in violation of the Texas Constitution. The court concluded that temporarily preventing the expenditure of these funds while the State's appeal proceeded ensured public funds were not irrecoverably spent in violation of the Texas Constitution. The State's appeal of the denial of a temporary injunction remains pending in the court of appeals. View "In re The State of Texas" on Justia Law

A roofing contractor in Texas, Stonewater Roofing, Ltd. Co., filed a lawsuit against the Texas Department of Insurance and its Commissioner, Cassie Brown, seeking to invalidate Texas’s licensing and dual-capacity regulations for public insurance adjusters. Stonewater, which is not a licensed public insurance adjuster, argued that these laws violated free speech and due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The trial court dismissed the case, siding with the state regulator, who argued that the laws regulated professional conduct, not speech, and that Stonewater failed to state valid void-for-vagueness claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the regulations triggered First Amendment scrutiny because the business of public insurance adjusting necessarily involves speech. The court also held that Stonewater’s vagueness challenges survived because the Public Insurance Adjusters Act did not clearly proscribe Stonewater’s alleged conduct.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment. The court held that the challenged statutes do not regulate or restrict speech but, rather, representative capacity with a nonexpressive objective: employment to act on behalf of an insured in negotiating for or effecting the settlement of a claim. The court also held that the statutes are clear enough in proscribing Stonewater’s alleged conduct to preclude both its as-applied and facial vagueness challenges. The court concluded that Stonewater failed to state cognizable First and Fourteenth Amendment speech and vagueness claims, and therefore, the trial court properly granted the state regulator's dismissal motion. View "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE v. STONEWATER ROOFING, LTD. CO" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case involving the State of Texas, Ken Paxton in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas, the Texas Medical Board, and Stephen Brint Carlton in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board (collectively, the State) against a group of women and physicians. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Texas's abortion laws, specifically the Human Life Protection Act, which generally prohibits performing an abortion except when a pregnant woman has a life-threatening physical condition that poses a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed.The case reached the Supreme Court of Texas as a direct appeal from a temporary injunction issued by the 353rd District Court, Travis County, Texas, which halted the enforcement of Texas's abortion laws in various circumstances. The State contested the injunction, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the State had sovereign immunity, and the current Texas law permitting life-saving abortion was not more limiting than the Texas Constitution permits.The Supreme Court of Texas held that one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Damla Karsan, had standing to challenge the Attorney General’s enforcement of the Human Life Protection Act against her. The court also concluded that the Declaratory Judgments Act waives the State’s immunity for a claim that a statute violates the state constitution. The court further clarified that under the Human Life Protection Act, a woman with a life-threatening physical condition and her physician have the legal authority to proceed with an abortion to save the woman’s life or major bodily function, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and with the woman’s informed consent. The court concluded that Dr. Karsan had not demonstrated that the part of the Human Life Protection Act that permits life-saving abortion is narrower than the Texas Constitution allows. As a result, the court vacated the lower court's injunction order. View "State v. Zurawski" on Justia Law

In 2020, Luke Hogan, a graduate student at Southern Methodist University (SMU), found his final semester disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many institutions, SMU shifted to online classes in response to government lockdown orders. Hogan, feeling cheated out of the in-person educational experience he had paid for, sued SMU for breach of contract. He sought a refund of his tuition and fees, arguing that the shift to online learning constituted a breach of SMU's promise of in-person education.The federal district court sided with SMU, and Hogan appealed. The Fifth Circuit then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas: Does the application of the Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA) to Hogan’s breach-of-contract claim violate the retroactivity clause in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution? The PLPA, enacted in 2021, protects schools from monetary liability for altering their activities in response to the pandemic.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the application of the PLPA to Hogan's claim does not violate the Texas Constitution's prohibition on retroactive laws. The court reasoned that Hogan did not have a settled expectation of recovering damages from SMU under these circumstances. The court noted that the common law has traditionally excused a party from performing a contract when performance is rendered impossible by an act of God or government. The court also pointed out that Hogan voluntarily accepted SMU's offer to complete his degree online without a corresponding offer of tuition refunds or reduced fees. Therefore, any right of recovery that might have existed for Hogan was speculative and untested prior to the PLPA's enactment. The court concluded that the PLPA, enacted to resolve legal uncertainty created by the pandemic, did not upset Hogan's settled expectations and thus did not violate the constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws. View "HOGAN v. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law

The case involves successors in interest of mineral-rights holders who sued in 2019 to declare a 1999 judgment foreclosing on their predecessors’ property for delinquent taxes as void. They argued that there was constitutionally inadequate notice of the foreclosure suit, rendering the foreclosure judgment and the tax sale that followed both void. The current owners sought traditional summary judgment based on the Tax Code’s command that an action relating to the title to property against the purchaser of the property at a tax sale may not be commenced later than one year after the date that the deed executed to the purchaser at the tax sale is filed of record.The trial court granted the current owners' motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The majority held that the sheriff’s deed conclusively established the accrual date for limitations, so the burden shifted to the successors to adduce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a due-process violation that could render the statute of limitations inoperable. Because the successors relied only on their arguments and presented no evidence of a due-process violation, the majority concluded, the current owners were entitled to summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Texas held that under Draughon v. Johnson, the nonmovant seeking to avoid the limitations bar by raising a due-process challenge bears the burden to adduce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact about whether the underlying judgment is actually void for lack of due process. Because the nonmovant here adduced no such evidence, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment based on Section 33.54(a)(1). However, the court also noted that the law governing this case has undergone meaningful refinement since the summary-judgment proceedings took place. Given these recent and substantial developments in the relevant law, the court remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings in the interest of justice. View "GILL v. HILL" on Justia Law