Court Filings

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s temporary injunction that had blocked the Texas Department of State Health Services from treating manufactured delta-8 THC products as Schedule I controlled substances. The Department and its commissioner had amended Schedule I definitions after objecting to a federal rule; the Court held those amendments were within the commissioner’s broad, statutorily granted discretion and did not conflict unambiguously with the 2019 Texas Farm Bill. The Court also held the Administrative Procedure Act did not govern publication of schedule changes, and that sovereign immunity bars the vendors’ claims.

The Texas Supreme Court dismissed interlocutory appeals and vacated three trial-court temporary injunctions that had barred the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) from investigating reports that minors received puberty blockers or hormone therapy for gender transition. The Court concluded the injunctions presented no live controversy because DFPS permanently closed most of the investigations and the remaining child reached majority, so there is no credible threat of future enforcement. A psychologist’s claim for injunctive relief likewise failed for lack of standing because her alleged injuries were speculative.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) denied the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services' petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed its motion for temporary emergency relief as moot. The court issued a short memorandum opinion resolving the original mandamus proceeding from Travis County without further opinion. The denial means the appellate court declined to order the lower court or official to take the specific action the Department sought; the emergency motion was unnecessary following that disposition.

Justice Busby dissents from the Court’s decision excusing a state agency’s late attempt to withhold records under the Texas Public Information Act. The dispute concerns whether an agency’s post-request question — asking whether the requester sought confidential information — lawfully paused the agency’s ten-business-day deadline to seek an Attorney General opinion before withholding records. Justice Busby argues the question did not narrow the request, was not one of the permitted follow-up inquiries, and cannot restart the statutory clock. He contends the Act requires timely agency action and presumes disclosure when the deadline is missed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and remanded, holding that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) timely sought an Attorney General opinion under the Public Information Act. Sierra Club had requested a large set of records on July 1, 2019. TCEQ emailed July 2 seeking clarification whether Sierra Club wanted confidential material released or would accept a narrowed response; Sierra Club declined. The Court held the ten-business-day clock began on July 2, the interagency-mail “mailbox rule” made TCEQ’s July 17 submission timely, and therefore TCEQ did not miss the statutory deadline. The case returns to the trial court to decide the merits of TCEQ’s claimed deliberative-process withholding privilege.

The court reviewed Corey Morrell’s suit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) after an enforcement order assessing penalties for scrap tires on his land. The trial court dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court held that the trial court erred only as to Morrell’s Public Information Act mandamus claim because the TCEQ withheld responsive records and did not prove an exception to disclosure. The court affirmed dismissal of Morrell’s other claims (challenging the order as void/ultra vires and a challenge to a scrap-tire rule) because they were untimely, lacked merit, or lacked standing, and remanded the PIA claim for further proceedings.

The Texas Department of Insurance filed an original proceeding in the Seventh Court of Appeals to challenge the denial of its motion to quash a subpoena in an underlying Lubbock County case. While the petition was pending, the Department and the plaintiff (Real Party in Interest, Traci Johnson) resolved their discovery dispute by a Rule 11 agreement, and the Department filed a notice that it intended to withdraw its petition. Because the parties settled and the relator withdrew its challenge, the court dismissed the Department's original proceeding without deciding the subpoena issue on the merits.