Monthly Newsletter

Notice and Announcements

2026 Riley Fletcher Basic Municipal Law Seminar

The 2026 Riley Fletcher Basic Municipal Law Seminar will take place on February 5-6 in Austin. We hope you can join us in Austin, but if you can’t, the seminar will also be available by live videocast. For more information or to register, please click here.

TCAA Law Students Conference Scholarships

TCAA invites law students attending ABA-accredited law schools to submit an application for a scholarship to attend the Riley Fletcher Basic Municipal Law Seminar to be held on February 5-6, 2026.  Each scholarship will cover conference registration fees.  Scholarship recipients will be exposed to various facets of municipal law and have an opportunity to interact with TCAA Board Members and municipal law attorneys across the State.  The scholarship deadline is January 21, 2026. For more information and to fill out an application, please click here.

SAVE THE DATE – 2026 TCAA Summer Conference

The 2026 TCAA Summer Conference at the Moody Gardens Hotel in Galveston will take place June 24-26, 2026.

2026 TCAA Summer Conference: Last Call for Speakers

The Texas City Attorneys Association invites all attorneys interested in presenting at the 2026 TCAA Summer Conference to submit your ideas as soon as possible. Ideas will be accepted through January 27^th. The TCAA Planning Committee will set the agenda in late January. Interested individuals can submit proposals on the TCAA website here: https://texascityattorneys.org/speakers/.  The conference will be held the Moody Gardens Hotel in Galveston on June 24-26, 2026.

TCAA Online Membership Directory

Looking to find the contact information for a fellow TCAA member? You can find it using the TCAA membership directory, available here.

IMLA Membership 

Membership with IMLA doesn’t just mean discounts to their events. It’s much more than that. Click here to view a quick video about IMLA membership.

Continuing Legal Education

2025 Fall Conference, 2025 Summer Conference and Paralegal Program Webinars 

These TCAA online seminars are FREE, allowing TCAA members who are city attorneys, assistant city attorneys, or attorneys who regularly practice municipal law to view the videos from the conferences in a single–session format. Viewing a session allows attorneys to receive participatory CLE credit with the State Bar. To view these seminars, please visit https://vimeo.com/tcaawebinars/collections. If you need the password, please email TCAA@tml.org. 

TCAA/TML Legal Defense Program: Amicus Briefs and Comments Filed

TCAA, in conjunction with the Texas Municipal League, files amicus briefs and comments in support of cities on many issues. To keep up to date on the status of these issues, go to: https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View/4986/Amicus-Brief-Update-August-2024.

Recent Federal Fifth Circuit Cases of Interest to Cities

Note: Included cases are from December 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. These case summaries have been prepared with the assistance of AI.

Sex Discrimination in Public Employment: Jackson v. Duff, 161 F.4th 343 (5th Cir. 2025). Debra Mays Jackson, Vice President of Jackson State University (JSU), filed a § 1983 action against members of the Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, alleging sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause after she was not hired as JSU’s president. The Board appointed Thomas Hudson, a male, as interim president despite Mays Jackson’s interest and qualifications, and later appointed him as the permanent president without a national search. Mays Jackson filed an EEOC charge in 2021, claiming discrimination based on sex. In 2023, after Hudson was placed on administrative leave, Mays Jackson applied for the presidency again but was denied an interview, and Marcus Thompson was selected instead, despite not applying and having less experience. Mays Jackson alleged that the Board’s actions in both 2020 and 2023 were discriminatory. The district court dismissed all claims except the § 1983 equal protection claim related to the 2023 decision, finding that Mays Jackson had made a prima facie case of sex discrimination, holding that the board members were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that sex discrimination in public employment violated the Equal Protection Clause. The board members appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Mays Jackson adequately pleaded a violation of clearly established law and that each accused member individually caused her alleged injury. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that the pleadings were taken as true only for the purpose of evaluating the motion to dismiss and did not express any view on the ultimate merits of the claims.

Chinese Property Ownership: Wang v. Paxton, 161 F.4th 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2025). Peng Wang, a Chinese citizen, challenged the constitutionality of Texas’s Senate Bill 17, which prohibits individuals domiciled in designated countries, including China, from acquiring property interests in Texas and became effective September 1, 2025. Wang has lived in Texas for sixteen years on an F-1 student visa and intends to remain in Texas after graduation, which means he is not domiciled in China. The district court dismissed Wang’s complaint for lack of standing, as he was not domiciled in China and faced no substantial threat of enforcement of the statute. Wang appealed.

Senate Bill 17 defines domicile as having a true, fixed, and permanent home to which an individual intends to return. Wang’s lack of intent to return to China and his established life in Texas meant he did not meet this definition. Additionally, the Texas Attorney General repeatedly disavowed applying the statute to Wang, eliminating any credible threat of enforcement. Wang’s arguments regarding his F-1 visa status and other Texas laws were found irrelevant to the domicile definition under SB 17. The court also noted that the presumption of enforcement applies only in First Amendment contexts, which was not relevant to Wang’s case. Consequently, the court concluded that Wang lacked standing due to the absence of a credible threat of enforcement and an injury-in-fact.

Religious Practice; Land Use: Perez v. City of San Antonio, No. 23-50746, 2025 WL 3559986 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2025). Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, sued the City of San Antonio, alleging that the city’s development plan for Brackenridge Park prevented them from performing essential religious ceremonies. They claimed violations under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA), and the Texas Constitution, seeking access to the park for worship, preservation of trees, and allowance for cormorants to nest. The district court granted them access for religious ceremonies on specific dates but did not enjoin the city’s tree removal and rookery management plans. Perez and Torres argued that these plans substantially burdened their religious practices, but the court found that the city had compelling interests in public health and safety and that the plans were the least restrictive means to achieve these interests. The Fifth Circuit determined that Perez’s and Torres’ access claims were moot as the city had removed fencing and a hazardous limb, allowing access to the sacred area. The court also concluded that the city’s actions did not substantially burden Perez’s and Torres’ religious exercise under TRFRA, as they still had access to the park and the bird deterrence measures were necessary for public safety. The city’s plans were found to be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling governmental interests, such as repairing retaining walls and mitigating health risks from bird guano. The court held that Perez and Torres failed to establish a likelihood of success on their claims under the Free Exercise Clause and the Texas Constitution. The Supreme Court of Texas clarified that the religious-service-protections provision of the Texas Constitution does not apply to the preservation and management of public lands, further weakening their case. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied the Perez’s and Torres’ emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal.

First Amendment: LIA Network v. City of Kerrville, Tex., No. 24-50788, 2025 WL 3684253 (5th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025). A grassroots citizen advocacy group, Liberty in Action Network (LIA), and two of its members, Terri Hall and Rachel Vickers, challenged a City of Kerrville ordinance regulating “canvassing” and “soliciting” under the First Amendment. The ordinance imposed restrictions on canvassing and soliciting activities, including time-of-day limits, prohibitions at properties with “No Solicitors” signs, and requirements for permits. Plaintiffs argued that these provisions restricted their free speech rights, and they sought a preliminary injunction. The district court granted the injunction for the permitting provision but denied it for the other provisions. The city appealed.

The Fifth Circuit found that LIA had standing to challenge most provisions, as their intended activities were arguably affected by the ordinance and there was a credible threat of enforcement. The Fifth Circuit determined that the ordinance’s definitions of “canvassing” and “soliciting” were content-based, subjecting them to strict scrutiny. The city failed to justify the restrictions under either strict or intermediate scrutiny, as it did not provide evidence of a genuine governmental interest or narrow tailoring. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s injunction against the permitting provision was overbroad and should be limited to protect only the LIA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings.

Heck Application: Kleinman v. City of Cedar Park, No. 25-50260, 2025 WL 3687507 (5th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025). Michael Kleinman, AusPro Enterprises, L.P., and MMK Holdings, L.P. challenged the constitutionality of a City of Cedar Park ordinance banning “head shops” within city limits. Kleinman and AusPro faced criminal fines under the ordinance but appealed their convictions, invoking their right to a trial de novo, which nullified the municipal court’s judgment. The district court dismissed their claims under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), which bars § 1983 claims if success would undermine a conviction, and granted summary judgment for the city.

However, the Fifth Circuit found that Heck does not apply because Kleinman and AusPro do not have final convictions, as their prosecutions are ongoing. The court also noted that MMK was never charged, making the application of Heck to its claims improper. The district court’s dismissal of the standalone equal protection claim regarding utility termination was affirmed, as the appellants disclaimed any intent to raise such a claim. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s Heck dismissals and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the dismissal of the water termination claim. The appeal was deemed final and appealable because it sought review of whether Heck even applied. The case highlights the procedural nuances of applying Heck to ongoing criminal matters and the implications for § 1983 claims.

Excessive Force: Ramirez v. Granado, No. 24-10755, 2025 WL 3760687 (5th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025). Juanita Ramirez filed an excessive-force claim against Officer Jonathan Granado after he shot and killed her son, Estevan Ramirez, as he fled from police. The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Granado, concluding his use of deadly force was reasonable and that qualified immunity shielded his actions.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case, finding genuine disputes of material fact that precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity. The incident occurred after a high-speed chase, where Ramirez, a passenger, fled the vehicle holding a handgun. Officer Granado claimed Ramirez swung the gun in the officers’ direction, justifying the use of deadly force. However, Officer Watson, who was closest to Ramirez, stated that Ramirez never pointed the gun at the officers. The autopsy report showed that Ramirez was shot in the back of the head and shoulders, suggesting he was fleeing when shot. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that the reasonableness of force must be assessed based on the totality of circumstances and that deadly force is unreasonable against a fleeing suspect who poses no immediate threat. The Fifth Circuit found that the evidence, including body-camera footage and witness statements, created genuine disputes about whether Ramirez posed a threat and concluded that these factual disputes should be resolved by a jury, not at summary judgment. The court also noted that it was clearly established law that deadly force is unreasonable against a fleeing felon who does not pose a sufficient threat. As a result, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Qualified Immunity & Discovery: Majors v. City of Canton, Mississippi, No. 25-60148, 2025 WL 3755537 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025). Allyson Majors filed a lawsuit against the City of Canton, Mississippi, its Board of Aldermen, and the City Attorney (collectively “City Defendants”), alleging retaliatory termination for reporting election fraud and forgery. She raised claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as under Mississippi law. The City Defendants removed the case to federal court and asserted defenses including qualified immunity and state immunity, seeking dismissal or summary judgment. The district court initially denied the City Defendants’ motion and ordered full discovery, but later clarified it had not ruled on immunity and ordered limited discovery instead.

The City Defendants appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reviewed the discovery order under the collateral order doctrine. The Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s order contravened the precedent set in Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4^th 307 (5^th Cir. 2022), which prohibits discovery against defendants asserting immunity before ruling on their defense. The Fifth Circuit noted that Majors’s constitutional claims must survive an immunity-based motion to dismiss without discovery. The district court erred by ordering limited discovery without ruling on whether Majors’s allegations overcame qualified immunity. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit ordered discovery without a request from the City Defendants, which is contrary to the procedure outlined in Carswell. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s discovery order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Election Law: La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Nelson, No. 22-50775, 2025 WL 3771384 (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 2025). This case involves multiple plaintiffs (collectively “La Union”) challenging the Texas Election Protection and Integrity Act of 2021, known as S.B.1, which was enacted to ensure uniform and consistent application of the Texas Election Code, reduce election fraud, protect ballot secrecy, promote voter access, and ensure all legally cast ballots are counted. La Union argue that various provisions of S.B.1 violate the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The defendants, including Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson and Attorney General Ken Paxton, appealed the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and standing.

The Fifth Circuit considered whether the Secretary of State and the Attorney General had sufficient connection to the enforcement of the challenged provisions to strip them of their sovereign immunity under the Ex parte Young doctrine. The Fifth Circuit analyzed the Secretary’s connection to the enforcement of the provisions and concluded that the Secretary had sufficient connection to some provisions, such as those related to voter registration list maintenance and mail-in ballot applications, to overcome sovereign immunity; however, the Fifth Circuit found that the Secretary did not enforce other provisions, such as those related to early voting sites and ballot requirements, and thus was entitled to sovereign immunity for those provisions. Regarding the Attorney General, the Fifth Circuit concluded that he was not a proper Ex parte Young defendant for most of the challenged provisions, except for Section 2.06, which allows the Attorney General to sue to recover civil penalties from counties that fail to comply with voter registration list maintenance requirements. The Fifth Circuit found that the Attorney General had demonstrated a willingness to enforce this provision through public statements and the formation of an Election Integrity Unit.

The Fifth Circuit also addressed standing to bring their claims and concluded that La Union had standing to challenge the provisions enforced by the Secretary and the Attorney General, as their injuries were traceable to the actions of these officials. Fifth Circuit court affirmed the district court’s denial of the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims challenging certain provisions and reversed the denial of the Secretary’s and Attorney General’s motions to dismiss other claims.

Negligence and Discrimination: Quiroz v. Hernandez, No. 25-40032, 2025 WL 3768726 (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 2025). This case involves an appeal by Madelyn Marina Quiroz and her mother, Marina Naomi Hernandez Quiroz, following the dismissal of their claims against twenty-three defendants related to a serious car collision. The collision occurred on January 23, 2020, when Madelyn, a backseat passenger, was injured due to reckless driving by Morgan White, who was racing Eduardo Hernandez. The district court dismissed the claims against all defendants with prejudice, except for Eduardo Hernandez, whose claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the Quirozes appealed. The Quirozes alleged negligence by first responders and private parties, as well as discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against city officials for their handling of the post-accident investigation.

The Fifth Circuit found the Quirozes’ complaint to be vague and filled with conclusory allegations, failing to establish state action or discriminatory intent for § 1983 claims. The claims against Allegiance Mobile Health and its paramedic, Steve Smith, were dismissed as they were not considered state actors, and the claims were time-barred. The Fifth Circuit also dismissed claims against the City of Dayton and its officials, finding them duplicative and time-barred. Claims against the City of Liberty and its paramedic, Katelyn Grimes, were dismissed due to lack of specific allegations and potential statute of limitations issues. The Liberty County Defendants were granted Eleventh Amendment and prosecutorial immunity, and the court noted the Quirozes lacked standing to sue them. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims with prejudice, except for those against the Liberty County Defendants, which were modified to be without prejudice.

Recent Texas Cases of Interest to Cities

Note: Included cases are from December 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. These case summaries have been prepared with the assistance of AI.

Tort Claims Act: City of Houston v. Ortiz, 2025 WL 3521320 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] December 9, 2025) (mem. op.). David Mejia and Lilia Lopez, individually and as next friends of Z.O., a minor, filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, alleging that a city employee abandoned a patrol vehicle on the highway, causing a collision that resulted in serious injuries to the Ortizes. The city filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that governmental immunity applied and that the appellees failed to plead facts to overcome this immunity or the exceptions under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the city appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the Ortizes’ pleadings sufficiently alleged facts within the TTCA’s waiver of immunity, as the claims arose from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle. The court also found that the Ortizes’ pleadings did not need to negate the official immunity defense, as they included allegations of reckless driving, which negated good faith. Additionally, the court determined that the Ortizes’ pleadings did not implicate the emergency or 9-1-1 exceptions to the TTCA, and thus, they were not required to allege additional facts negating these exceptions.

Tort Claims Act: City of Houston v. Humphries, No. 01-25-00276-CV, 2025 WL 3521323 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 9, 2025) (mem. op.). Shadrick Humphries was injured when he slipped on a puddle in a restroom at William P. Hobby Airport and subsequently sued the City of Houston for negligence and premises liability. The city moved for traditional summary judgment, arguing governmental immunity and that it owed Humphries only the duty owed to a licensee, not an invitee, on private property, and claimed it did not have knowledge of the premises defect before Humphries’s fall. The trial court denied the summary-judgment motion, concluding that while the city owed only the duty owed to a licensee, there was a question of fact about whether the city had actual knowledge of the premises defect.

On appeal, the city challenged the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s interlocutory order, concluding that the city conclusively negated the statutory waiver of governmental immunity and that Humphries did not raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court rendered judgment dismissing Humphries’s claims against the city.

Tort Claims Act: City of Houston v. Michaca, No. 01-24-00224-CV, 2025 WL 3545572 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 11, 2025) (mem. op.). This case involves a motor-vehicle collision between Houston Police Department Officer Horace James Scott and Martha Gladis Moran Michaca at an intersection, where Scott was pursuing a fleeing aggravated robbery suspect. The City of Houston moved for summary judgment, claiming governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), citing the emergency exception and official immunity. The trial court denied the motion, and the city appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed, preventing summary judgment. The court found that fact issues were raised regarding whether Officer Scott complied with the laws applicable to emergency vehicles, as required by the TTCA’s emergency exception, and whether he acted in good faith for official immunity to apply. The court concluded that the city did not meet its burden to show no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the applicability of the emergency exception or official immunity.

Plat Approvals: City of Pasadena v. Carousel Village Condo’s, Inc., 2025 WL 3635891 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 16, 2025) (mem. op.). Carousel Village Condo’s, Inc. (“Carousel Village”) applied to the City of Pasadena for a final plat and permit to build a travel trailer park, which was rejected by the city. Carousel Village sought a writ of mandamus to compel approval and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the application of Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 21. The city responded with a plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Carousel Village’s claims included challenges to the city’s governmental immunity and the applicability of the ultra vires doctrine. The city argued that Carousel Village’s claims were not ripe and were barred by governmental immunity.

The appellate court concluded that the city’s governmental immunity barred Carousel Village’s claims and reversed the trial court’s denial of the city’s plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act did not waive the city’s governmental immunity, and the provisions of the Local Government Code invoked by Carousel Village did not apply. Additionally, the court determined that the ultra vires exception to governmental immunity did not apply, and Carousel Village did not preserve its constitutional challenge.

Statute of Limitations: City of Houston v. De La Cruz, No. 01-24-00797-CV, 2025 WL 3672311 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 18, 2025) (mem. op.). This case involves a motor-vehicle accident that occurred on February 2, 2022, between Carwin Alexander Flores, an employee of the City of Houston, and Myrna De La Cruz. De La Cruz filed a negligence suit against Flores and alleged that the city was vicariously liable for Flores’s conduct. The original petition was filed on February 5, 2024, one business day after the two-year statute of limitations expired. The city and Flores filed a joint motion to dismiss under Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing that the suit was barred by limitations and that De La Cruz did not exercise due diligence in serving process. The trial court denied the motion, and the city and Flores appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Rule 91a was not the appropriate vehicle for dismissing the case based on limitations because the file stamp date on the petition was not part of the allegations and could be rebutted by evidence. The court found that the dispute over the filing date raised a fact issue that required evidence to resolve, making Rule 91a an improper procedural vehicle for resolving the dispute. Additionally, the court concluded that the city did not establish that De La Cruz’s action had no basis in law or fact, as the city’s contentions were based on factual disputes requiring evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.

Tort Claims Act: City of Houston v. Williams, No. 01-23-00974-CV, 2025 WL 3712204 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2025) (mem. op.). In this interlocutory appeal, the City of Houston challenged the trial court’s denial of its motions to dismiss Monique Williams’s negligence claims. Williams alleged that on November 27, 2021, she was involved in a car collision in Harris County, Texas, caused by Jo Ann Walton, an employee of the city, resulting in serious bodily injuries. Williams claimed negligence against Walton and vicarious liability against the city, asserting Walton was acting within the scope of her employment. The city filed motions to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing governmental immunity and that Williams’s claims did not fall under the Texas Tort Claims Act’s waiver of immunity. The trial court denied the city’s motions due to insufficient notice under Rule 91a.3(b), as the motions were not filed at least twenty-one days before the hearing.

The appellate affirmed the trial court’s orders denying the city’s motions to dismiss, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motions based on the city’s failure to comply with the twenty-one-day notice requirement of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.3(b). The court found that Williams had sufficiently objected to the untimeliness of the city’s first motion, and the trial court had the authority to deny the second motion sua sponte. The appellate court concluded that the city did not meet its burden to establish that the trial court erred in its decision.

Tort Claims Act: Valerie Hall v. City of Jersey Village, 2025 WL 3768170 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 31, 2025) (mem. op.). Valerie Hall, while working as a manager at The Backyard Grill located on the Jersey Meadows Golf Course, was injured by a golf ball hit by Terry R. Thomas. Hall and her husband sued the restaurant, Thomas, and the City of Jersey Village, which owns the golf course, alleging negligence and seeking damages under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The trial court initially granted the city’s plea to the jurisdiction, but this decision was reversed on interlocutory appeal to allow for amended pleadings and jurisdictional discovery. After the Halls amended their petition and conducted discovery, the city filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing all claims against the city.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the Halls failed to produce evidence to support their claims against the city. The court found that the Halls did not demonstrate that Thomas was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, which was necessary to waive the city’s governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Additionally, the court held that the Halls did not plead facts sufficient to establish a premises liability claim or a waiver of immunity for loss of consortium claims, as these were derivative of Hall’s barred claims. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of all claims against the City of Jersey Village.

Tort Claims Act: City of Houston v. Torres, No. 01-23-00905-CV, 2025 WL 3768328 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 31, 2025) (mem. op.). Jose Torres, a painter employed by Arredondo’s Real Drywall, Inc., was injured while working at Houston Fire Department Station #34 when a motorized bay door, operated by firefighter Adam Ricci, knocked over the scissor lift Torres was using. Ricci, unaware of Torres’s presence, opened the bay door with a remote control from his emergency vehicle, causing the accident. The trial court found the City of Houston negligent and awarded damages to Torres, concluding that the city’s actions proximately caused Torres’s injuries. The city appealed, challenging the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of evidence regarding negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA).

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the city’s governmental immunity was not waived under the TTCA. The appellate court found that Ricci owed no legal duty to Torres because the risk of harm was not foreseeable, as Ricci was unaware of Torres’s presence behind the bay door. Consequently, the city retained its governmental immunity, and the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

Texas Tort Claims Act: City of Forest Hill and Richard Winters v. Lina Mino, No. 02-25-00132-CV, 2025 WL 3492583 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 4, 2025) (mem. op.). This case involves an appeal by the City of Forest Hill and Sergeant Richard Winters (the “city”) against Lina Mino, a police officer from a different department who was injured during a police training course hosted by the city and private entities. The city argued that the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) applied because the city’s actions were governmental functions. The court agreed that the training was sufficiently connected to police protection and control to constitute a governmental function under the TTCA, and the city offering the training to officers outside of its police department and partnering with private entities did not make the function a proprietary one. The court also dismissed the state-law tort claims against Winters, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the § 1983 claims. The court did not address the appellants’ third issue regarding jurisdiction over claims seeking damages beyond those authorized by the TTCA, as it was rendered unnecessary by the court’s other holdings.

Public Information Act: City of Olmos Park v. Grable, No. 08-24-00388-CV, 2025 WL 3619332, (Tex. App. – El Paso, Dec. 12, 2025) (mem. op.). In September 2023, the City of Olmos Park terminated its chief of police following an operational assessment of its police department. Grable requested the assessment, but the city withheld it on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, pursuant to an Attorney General ruling. Grable filed suit against Olmos Park seeking a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure. Olmos Park filed a plea to the jurisdiction (PTJ) and a motion for summary judgment (MSJ). The trial court denied Olmos Park’s PTJ and MSJ. Olmos Park appealed the trial court’s rulings, arguing that governmental immunity was not waived and that the requested information was privileged.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s PTJ denial, holding that immunity was waived under the Texas Public Information Act because Olmos Park refused to supply public information. It found that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine if the requested information was subject to disclosure, regardless of the Attorney General’s ruling. The appellate court also dismissed Olmos Park’s MSJ appeal, explaining that it was not an appealable order because it was neither a final order nor one involving jurisdictional issues.

Employment Discrimination: City of Brownsville v. Garcia, No. 13-24-00159-CV, 2025 WL 3676269 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Dec. 18, 2025) (mem. op.). Valerie Garcia, a former full-time municipal court judge for the City of Brownsville, Texas, from 2014 to 2018, filed a lawsuit against the city on January 27, 2023, alleging violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and discrimination under § 21.051 of the Texas Labor Code. Garcia claimed that the city did not post or publish the job opening for the presiding municipal court judge position, thereby denying her the opportunity to apply, and alleged that the city discriminated against her based on her sex by hiring Rene De Coss, a male, for the position. The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Garcia did not apply for the position and that municipal court judges are not employees but public officials, thus challenging the existence of an employment relationship. The trial court denied the city’s plea, leading to the city’s appeal.

The appellate reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the TCHRA. The appellate court determined that Garcia and De Coss were not similarly situated, as De Coss had significantly more experience and different responsibilities, which did not meet the requirement of being “nearly identical” for comparison purposes. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment dismissing Garcia’s claims against the city.

Retaliation: Hirsch v. City of Houston, No. 14-24-00536-CV, 2025 WL 3636680, (Tex. App.-Houston [14^th Dist.] Dec. 16, 2025). Hirsch, a police cadet at the Houston Police Academy, filed suit against the City of Houston under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), the Labor Code, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging that she was harassed and retaliated against after filing a workers’ compensation claim for an injury suffered during her training. The trial court granted Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Hirsch’s claims with prejudice. Hirsch appealed the trial court’s ruling.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling on two grounds. First, the appellate court found that Hirsh raised a fact question regarding her status as a first responder, which could waive governmental immunity under the TWCA. Second, the appellate court determined that Hirsch’s TCHRA retaliation claim was timely and that the Act’s anti-retaliation provision applies to active and prospective employees. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings. 

Employment Discrimination: Texas Department of Public Safety v. Turner, No. 14-24-00709-CV, 2025 WL 3636681 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 16, 2025). Turner, a Black female with a 26-year career at the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), filed suit against the Department of Public Safety (DPS) alleging discrimination and retaliation after being passed over for a promotion to Major in the Investigative Support Section in favor of a white male applicant. Turner claimed that DPS based its decision on her race and sex, and in retaliation for previous complaints against a superior. The trial court denied DPS’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. DPS appealed the trial court’s rulings.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s rulings, concluding that Turner failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claims. Specifically, the appellate court found that DPS had articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for promoting Hicks, based on his relevant experience and vision for the department, which Turner could not prove was a pretext for discrimination. The appellate court also found that Turner did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation, as there was no causal link between her prior complaints and the promotion decision. As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s rulings and rendered judgment dismissing Turner’s claims.

TCEQ Wastewater Permitting; Regionalization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. City of Georgetown, No. 15-24-00132-CV, 2025 WL 3759799 (Tex. App. [15th Dist.] Dec. 30, 2025)(mem. op.). The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality issued a wastewater discharge permit to AIRW 2017-7, L.P. for a new treatment plant in Williamson County, Texas. The City of Georgetown challenged this decision, arguing it was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. The trial court reversed the Commission’s decision, citing non-compliance with Texas’s regionalization policy. TCEQ appealed. The Commission and other appellants argued that substantial evidence supported the permit’s compliance with the regionalization policy, particularly due to cost considerations. The Commission’s findings included that the cost of connecting to the city’s wastewater services would allegedly reduce property value by $20 million, justifying an exception to the regionalization policy.

The appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s decision, including the consideration of opportunity costs. The city also argued the permit failed to protect water quality, comply with antidegradation policies, and protect human health, among other issues. However, the Fifth Circuit found substantial evidence supporting the permit’s compliance with water quality standards and antidegradation policies. The appellate court also found the permit protective of human health, meeting nuisance odor requirements, and that AIRW’s application was complete. Ultimately the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and affirmed the Commission’s order granting the permit.