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. The County declined to disclose the database and sought an attorney general ruling; the Attorney General’s Open Records Division ruled that the file had to be disclosed.
Plaisance intervened in Hart InterCivic’s lawsuit in support of disclosure and asserted counterclaims alleging breach of contract and violations of her constitutional rights. Montgomery 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. 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 treated standing and immunity as constitutionally grounded limits on judicial authority. As an intermediate appellate court, the Fifteenth Court was bound by those decisions. It therefore upheld the dismissal of Plaisance’s counterclaims against both the County and the Attorney General for want of jurisdiction.
The court also held that Plaisance was not entitled to an opportunity to amend her pleadings because she offered no explanation of how she could cure the jurisdictional defects.
Key Takeaways
- Standing and sovereign or governmental immunity may prevent a Texas court from reaching the merits because they limit the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
- An intermediate Texas appellate court must follow Texas Supreme Court precedent treating those doctrines as constitutionally grounded limits on judicial power.
- A litigant is not entitled to replead when the litigant identifies no way to cure the jurisdictional defects.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that labeling a claim constitutional does not itself overcome standing requirements or governmental and sovereign immunity. A claimant suing a county or state official must establish standing and plead a valid basis for overcoming the applicable immunity.
It also illustrates the importance of explaining how amended pleadings would cure a jurisdictional defect. Without a viable proposed theory, an appellate court may affirm dismissal without allowing another opportunity to amend.