Background
The Waltons sued five Sanger ISD employees on behalf of their daughter, who had been subjected to repeated threats over two years by another student. The threats included statements that the student would kill her, references to knowing where guns are located, and telling her to harm herself. School administrators were aware of at least some threats following reports from the student, school bus driver, and parents. After the Waltons requested that the threatening student be removed from school and buses, the school implemented a “stay away plan” but refused further action, stating it needed to clarify the timeline of threats.
In November 2025, the Waltons filed suit alleging the ISD employees violated ministerial duties under Texas Education Code Section 37.115 and district threat-assessment policy by failing to conduct a proper assessment and impose adequate safety measures. They sought a temporary restraining order and injunction requiring removal of the threatening student, plus a declaration of breach and attorney’s fees. The school employees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing the Waltons lacked a valid ultra vires claim because threat-assessment decisions are discretionary, not ministerial duties.
The trial court denied the plea and ordered the school to conduct a threat assessment within seven business days. The school employees appealed, and the appellate court stayed trial proceedings while considering the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dispositive issue was whether the Waltons properly pleaded an ultra vires claim—which requires showing that employees failed to perform a purely ministerial act or acted outside their authority. Examining Section 37.115, the court found the statute requires school districts to establish threat-assessment teams and policies but grants those teams substantial discretion in two ways: first, discretion to determine whether an individual poses a threat based on available information; and second, discretion to select appropriate interventions once a threat is identified.
The court found the ISD employees had investigated the threats, conducted an assessment of the threatening student’s behavior, and determined a stay-away plan was appropriate. The Waltons’ complaint was not that no assessment occurred—it was disagreement with the assessment outcome and desire for stricter measures. Since discretionary actions, even if erroneous, receive governmental immunity protection, the Waltons failed to allege facts showing an ultra vires violation. The trial court thus lacked jurisdiction to order specific threat assessments or safety measures.
Key Takeaways
- Texas Education Code Section 37.115 mandates threat assessments and safety policies but grants schools discretion in both conducting assessments and selecting interventions in response to identified threats.
- Disagreement with a school’s threat assessment conclusion does not create liability if school personnel actually performed an assessment; courts cannot substitute their judgment for school discretion.
- School employees retain governmental immunity for discretionary decisions even when parents believe different responses would be more protective—immunity covers erroneous discretionary decisions.
- Parents cannot use ultra vires claims to challenge how schools implement threat-assessment policies; they can only challenge complete failures to assess threats.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly constrains parents’ ability to challenge school safety decisions in court. Even when allegations involve serious, repeated threats to student safety, courts will dismiss cases if school employees conducted any form of investigation or assessment, regardless of whether parents believe the response was adequate. The ruling essentially insulates school administrators from judicial review of threat-assessment decisions, requiring instead that parents exhaust administrative remedies or appeal to school boards.
The decision underscores the practical limits of judicial enforcement for student safety in schools. While Section 37.115 appears to impose clear duties, the court’s interpretation gives schools broad discretion to determine both what constitutes a sufficient assessment and what interventions are appropriate. This creates a significant barrier for parents seeking court orders to enforce school safety policies, even in cases with documented repeated threats.