Background
Hart InterCivic, Inc., which supplies Montgomery County with voting machines and secure election software, sued the County and the Texas Attorney General to avoid complying with Kristen Plaisance’s request under the Texas Public Information Act. Plaisance had requested a copy of a software-generated backup file containing votes cast in the most recent election, and the Attorney General’s Open Records Division ruled that the file must be disclosed.
Plaisance intervened in Hart InterCivic’s lawsuit in support of disclosure and asserted counterclaims against Montgomery County, the Montgomery County Elections Office, and the Attorney General for breach of contract and violations of her constitutional rights. The County and the Attorney General filed separate pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing that Plaisance lacked standing and had not pleaded a waiver of sovereign or governmental immunity. The trial court sustained both pleas and dismissed the counterclaims.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed both jurisdictional dismissals. Plaisance did not argue that the trial court had misapplied the governing law on standing or immunity. Instead, she contended that the Texas Constitution barred courts from using those doctrines to dispose of claims—particularly constitutional claims—without reaching their merits.
The court rejected that argument because the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized standing and governmental or sovereign immunity as constitutionally grounded limits on judicial power. As an intermediate appellate court, the Fifteenth Court was bound by those decisions. It also held that Plaisance was not entitled to amend her pleadings because she offered no explanation of how the jurisdictional defects could be cured.
Key Takeaways
- Standing and sovereign or governmental immunity may require dismissal without consideration of a claim’s merits because they limit a Texas court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
- An intermediate Texas appellate court must follow the Texas Supreme Court’s treatment of those doctrines as constitutional limits on judicial authority.
- A party seeking an opportunity to replead must identify how an amendment could cure the jurisdictional defect.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that labeling a claim constitutional does not, by itself, permit a Texas court to bypass standing requirements or governmental and sovereign immunity. Those threshold doctrines remain controlling even when their application prevents a merits determination.
The opinion also illustrates the importance of explaining on appeal how defective jurisdictional allegations could be amended. Without a proposed path to cure the defects, dismissal may be affirmed without an opportunity to replead.