For the first time in nearly sixty years, the Texas Legislature created a new appellate court. In 2023, the Legislature passed S.B. 1045 creating the new Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth District, which includes all counties in Texas. The legislation also gave the Governor the power to appoint the initial slate of three justices to the court; they will stand for statewide election in November 2026. The court’s statewide reach differs from the other fourteen court of appeals districts, which are geographically limited and elected only by the voters within their region.[1] In addition to its geographical difference, the Fifteenth Court also has distinct subject-matter jurisdiction.[2] All cases pending in the other courts of appeals filed after September 1, 2023, within the Fifteenth Court’s exclusive jurisdiction, were to be transferred to the court by September 1, 2024.[3] Dallas County challenged the court’s constitutionality, alleging that the S.B. 1045 violated several provisions of the Texas Constitution. 

On August 23, 2024, the Supreme Court of Texas in In re Dallas County[4] denied the County’s petition for writ of injunction and upheld the statute creating the Fifteenth District Court of Appeals.              

The underlying suit and appeal, involving Dallas County and its sheriff suing officials of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, was within the Fifteenth Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. The case was therefore among those slated to be transferred to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals by September 1.[5] Dallas County filed a Petition for Writ of Injunction in the Supreme Court to stop the case’s transfer. The County argued that S.B. 1045’s creation of the Fifteenth Court is unconstitutional.[6] The Supreme Court disagreed.

After determining that it had jurisdiction to consider the County’s petition,[7] the court rejected the County’s three core merits arguments. First, the County argued that the Texas Constitution requires every court of appeals district to cover only a subdivision of the State’s territory. The court held that neither the text nor the history of Article V, § 6(a) of the Texas Constitution prohibits the legislature from creating a court of appeals with statewide jurisdiction.[8] The court considered the changes to the Texas Constitution, noting that the revisions from 1876 to 1891 were intended to give the Legislature greater ability to shape the judiciary.[9] And all subsequent amendments have given the Legislature more discretion to do so.[10] The court also noted that other sections of the Texas Constitution contain explicit geographic limitations. For example, Article V, Section 7a(i) dictates geographic limitations on the district courts.[11] But no such limitation exists for appellate courts.  The court also looked to the plain meaning of two key words in Article V, § 6(a) of the Constitution: “divide” and “district.”[12] The court ultimately concluded that neither of these words required the courts of appeals be geographically subdivided.[13] The State is divided into courts of appeals districts, and the statewide Fifteenth Court does not change that.[14] The court concluded that, “[a]t most, the text forbids having a single court of appeals—the situation that the 1891 amendments to Article V changed.”[15] And while “district” often refers to geographic subdivisions, it does not have to do so.[16] The court rejected the hyperliteral interpretation that would prevent overlapping “districts” within the state.[17] 

Next, the court held that Article V, § 6(a) expressly granted the Legislature authority to give the Fifteenth Court exclusive intermediate appellate jurisdiction over certain matters, as well as to decline to vest that court with criminal jurisdiction.[18] The County contended that the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Fifteenth Court unconstitutionally drains jurisdiction from other courts of appeals; that the Fifteenth Court’s jurisdiction is unconstitutionally tethered to subject matter rather than geography; and that S.B. 1045 unconstitutionally deprives the Fifteenth Court of criminal jurisdiction.[19] The court rejected each of these arguments. As a default, the appellate courts have broad jurisdiction. But the court noted that the constitution gives the Legislature the ability to adjust that jurisdiction, “up and down.”[20] Article V, § 6(a) states that the “Court[s] of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to all cases of which the District Courts or County Courts have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law.”[21] As the court noted, “[e]xclusively routing certain categories of cases to the Fifteenth Court amounts to ‘restrict[ing]’ the jurisdiction of the courts that otherwise could exercise it.”[22] Similarly, removing criminal cases is a valid restriction on the court’s jurisdiction.

Finally, the court held that the Governor’s initial appointments to the Fifteenth Court do not violate Article V, § 28(a)’s requirement that vacancies on a court of appeals must be filled in the next general election.[23] A vacancy must arise with sufficient time before an election to be placed on the ballot. [24]  The Election Code determines that 74 days are needed.[25] The court held that this rule, which allows ballots to be timely printed and distributed, adheres to the constitutional requirement.[26] The court rejected the County’s arguments that the vacancies occurred at any time before September 1, 2024, which is fewer than 74 days before the election.[27] Filling the vacancies by appointment until the November 2026 general election was therefore lawful.

 

[1] The fourteen regional courts of appeals generally hear cases appealed from trial courts within their respective districts. But the regions, much like the regional federal courts of appeals, have varying docket loads. The legislature has therefore given the Supreme Court of Texas the authority to order cases transferred from one court of appeals to another. See generally Ch. 73 Tex. Gov’t Code.

[2] See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.220(d) (2023) (specifying the matters over which the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has jurisdiction); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.01(2) (2023) (divesting the court of jurisdiction over criminal matters).

[3] S.B. 1045, 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2023).

[4] 697 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2024).

[5] Id. at 146.

[6] Id. at 161.

[7] Id. at 149.

[8] Id. at 159.

[9] Id. at 153–55.

[10] Id. at 155–56.

[11] Id. at 156.

[12] See Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a) (“The state shall be divided into courts of appeals districts, with each district having a Chief Justice, two or more other Justices, and such other officials as may be provided by law.”).

[13] 697 S.W.3d at 156–57.

[14] Id. at 153.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 156.

[17] Id. at 158.

[18] Id. at 160–62.

[19] Id. at 160.

[20] Id. at 160.

[21] Id. (quoting Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a)) (emphasis in original).

[22] Id.

[23] Id. at 164–65.

[24] Tex. Const. art. 5, § 28(a).

[25] Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 202.002(b).

[26] 697 S.W.3d at 163–64.

[27] Id. at 164–65.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].