Background
The State of Texas challenged Austin’s “Elimination of Marijuana Enforcement” ordinance, which contains three sections. Sections 16-1-1 and 16-1-2 concern citations and arrests for marijuana offenses, while Section 16-1-3 generally bars the use of city funds or personnel for THC testing.
In an earlier appeal, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the State’s temporary-injunction application and directed the trial court to prohibit enforcement of the ordinance pending trial. After the Texas Supreme Court denied review and the mandate issued, the trial court enjoined only Sections 16-1-1 and 16-1-2. The State then sought mandamus relief and alternatively pursued an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief. Its prior opinion had expressly defined “the Ordinance” as including all three sections and had directed the trial court to enjoin the ordinance as a whole. By leaving Section 16-1-3 in effect, the trial court failed to perform its mandatory, ministerial duty to enforce the appellate judgment and mandate.
The State’s pending interlocutory appeal was not an adequate alternative remedy because the prior appeal had already awarded the relief the State sought. Requiring a second appeal to secure compliance would waste additional resources. The court again directed the trial court to enter a temporary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the entire ordinance pending trial and stated that the writ would issue only if the trial court failed to comply.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court must give full effect to an appellate court’s judgment and mandate and may not take action inconsistent with their scope.
- The earlier mandate required temporary restraint of all three sections of Austin’s marijuana-enforcement ordinance, including its restriction on city-funded THC testing.
- A second interlocutory appeal was not an adequate remedy when the State had already obtained the same relief in the prior appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that compliance with an appellate mandate is a ministerial obligation enforceable by mandamus. A trial court may not narrow relief clearly ordered by an appellate court after remand.
Practically, the ruling requires Austin’s entire ordinance—not merely its arrest-and-citation provisions—to remain unenforced while the underlying challenge proceeds to a final trial on the merits.