The Supreme Court of Texas convened Feb. 19, 2025, and heard oral arguments from two Austin Bar members.
Austin Bar Member Catherine Robb, Haynes and Boone, for Respondent
Paxton v. Am. Oversight
Administrative Law – Public Information Act
At issue is whether trial courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against the Governor and Attorney General to compel information under the Public Information Act.
In 2021 and 2022, American Oversight submitted various PIA requests to the Office of the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General. These requests largely pertained to official governmental communications surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, and the 2022 shooting in Uvalde. Both offices provided some documents but also reported that they did not find documents responsive to the requests for communications between government officials and external entities, including the National Rifle Association. Both offices also sought to withhold information they view as excepted from disclosure. Both offices received open records letter rulings from OAG’s Open Records Decision opining that the documents are excepted from disclosure and can be withheld.
American Oversight sued the Governor and Attorney General in their official capacities in Travis County district court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of the requested information. The Governor and Attorney General filed pleas to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity and mootness. They argued, among other things, that American Oversight failed to plead a viable claim that they had “refuse[d]” to supply public information. The trial court denied the pleas. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Governor and Attorney General petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the trial court lacked mandamus jurisdiction over American Oversight’s suit because only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against executive officers. They also argue that American Oversight has not demonstrated a waiver of sovereign immunity by showing that the government refused to supply public information. The Court granted the petition.
Watch this oral argument on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPaakLr5Ybo.
The case documents are available at https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=24-0162&coa=cossup.
Austin Bar Member Michael A. Heidler, Vinson & Elkins, for Relators
In re Oncor Elec. Delivery Co.
Negligence – Public Utilities
At issue is whether the multidistrict litigation court should have dismissed plaintiffs’ gross negligence and intentional nuisance claims against transmission and distribution utility companies.
In Feb. 2021, Winter Storm Uri created record-setting demand for electricity. ERCOT ordered transmission and distribution utilities to “load shed” (interrupt power) to protect the electric grid from collapse. The TDUs’ load shedding reduced electric service on ERCOT’s grid, causing blackouts for four days.
Thousands of customers filed hundreds of lawsuits against electricity companies, including TDUs, seeking damages related to the power outages. The cases were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs alleged various claims, including negligence, gross negligence, and nuisance. The TDUs moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing that the claims are barred by the tariff governing their operations. The trial court dismissed some claims but refused to dismiss the negligence, gross negligence, and nuisance claims. The court of appeals granted mandamus relief in part, ordering dismissal of the negligence and strict-liability nuisance claims, while allowing the gross negligence and intentional nuisance claims to proceed.
The TDUs petitioned the Supreme Court for mandamus relief. They argue that the common law does not impose tort duties on TDUs in emergency load-shedding. Additionally, they contend that their tariff’s force majeure provision bars gross negligence and intentional nuisance claims arising from good-faith compliance with ERCOT’s emergency orders. The Court granted argument on the petition for writ of mandamus.
Watch this oral argument on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPaakLr5Ybo.
The case documents are available at https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=24-0424&coa=cossup.