sovereign immunity in Texas

2026See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225–26 (“Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction[.] . . .

2025“Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Id. at 225-26 .

2025In other words, these “suits” implicate sovereign immunity, whereas “suits to compel state officers to act within their official capacity do not attempt to subject the State to liability” and thus “do not implicate the sovereign-immunity doctrine.” IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855–56 (noting that as opposed to 12 “certain declaratory-judgment actions against state officials,” those “seeking to establish a contract’s validity, to enforce performance under a contract, or to impose contractual liabilities” implicate sovereign immunity because they “attempt to control state action by imposing liability o

2025Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex. 2002), and “political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity.” City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex. 2011) (noting that “[g]overnmental immunity is distinct from sovereign immunity, and refers to the protection afforded to political subdivisions such as counties, cities, school districts, and others” (citation omitted)).

2024Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex. 1997) (“A state official’s illegal or unauthorized actions are not acts of the State[]” and thus do not implicate the State’s sovereign immunity).

2024Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex. 1997) (“A state official’s illegal or unauthorized actions are not acts of the State[]” and thus do not implicate the State’s sovereign immunity).

2025“Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Miranda, 133 17 S.W.3d at 225–26 (citing Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex. 1999)) (other citation omitted). “‘The TCHRA waives immunity, but only when the plaintiff states a claim for conduct that actually violates the statute.’” Lara, 625 S.W.3d at 52 (quoting Alamo Heights Indep.

2025“Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 225–26 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex. 1999)).

2026A Sovereign immunity is “an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations.” Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex. 3 2006) (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 529 (1857)).

2026A Sovereign immunity is “an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations.” Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex. 3 2006) (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 529 (1857)).

2025“It is settled in Texas that for the Legislature to waive the State’s sovereign immunity, a statute or resolution must contain a clear and unambiguous expression of the Legislature’s waiver of immunity.” Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tex. 2003).

2025It also disputed the reasoning in a third Texas Supreme Court opinion, Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylor, without acknowledging that the opinion bluntly embraced the doctrine of sovereign immunity—and thus must be “overturned” to grant the relief Gensetix seeks. 106 S.W.3d 692, 694 (Tex. 2003); CR:442.

2025Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex. 2002), and “political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity.” City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 , 134 & n.5 (Tex. 2011) (noting that “[g]overnmental immunity is distinct from sovereign immunity, and refers to the protection afforded to political subdivisions such as counties, cities, school districts, and others” (citation omitted)).

2025Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex. 2002), and “political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity.” City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex. 2011) (noting that “[g]overnmental immunity is distinct from sovereign immunity, and refers to the protection afforded to political subdivisions such as counties, cities, school districts, and others” (citation omitted)).

2026“It is well settled that ‘private parties cannot circumvent the State’s sovereign immunity from suit by characterizing a suit for money damages . . . as a declaratory-judgment claim.’” Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 371 (quoting Tex. Nat.

2025Sovereign immunity does not bar suits like this one that seek forward- 11 looking relief in the form of a declaration or injunction to enforce the Texas Constitution. “[W]hile governmental immunity generally bars suits for retrospective monetary relief, it does not preclude prospective injunctive remedies” in “suits against government actors who violate statutory or constitutional provisions.” City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 , 368–69 (Tex. 2009) (emphases added).

2026The UDJA “‘does not waive the state’s sovereign immunity when 11 the plaintiff seeks a declaration of his or her rights under a statute or other law.’” Jefferson Cnty. v. Stines, 523 S.W.3d 691, 708 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2017, rev’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 550 S.W.3d 178 (2018) (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2011)).

2025The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that sovereign immunity does not bar claims to compel state officials to conform their conduct to the law: “Sovereign immunity does not preclude prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against state officials who act without legal authority”[Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 , 621–22 (Tex. 2011); City of Elsa v. M.A.L., 226 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. 2007)].

2025Texas has long recognized the doctrine of sovereign immunity: that “no state can be sued in her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that consent.” Hosner v. DeYoung, 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1847).

2025Texas has long recognized the doctrine of sovereign immunity: that “no state can be sued in her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that consent.” Hosner v. DeYoung, 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1847).

2025The Texas Supreme Court demarcated important limits on the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Reata, holding that “where the governmental entity has joined into the litigation process by asserting its own affirmative claims for monetary relief, we see no ill befalling the governmental entity or hampering of its governmental functions by allowing adverse parties to assert, as an offset, claims germane to, connected with, and properly defensive to those asserted by the governmental entity.” Id. at 376–77.

2025The Texas Supreme Court demarcated important limits on the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Reata, holding that “where the governmental entity has joined into the litigation process by asserting its own affirmative claims for monetary relief, we see no ill befalling the governmental entity or hampering of its governmental functions by allowing adverse parties to assert, as an offset, claims germane to, connected with, and properly defensive to those asserted by the governmental entity.” Id. at 376–77.

2019See Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 , 639–40 (Tex. 2004) (citing “line of decisions stating that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because of the sovereign immunity bar” and stating, in context of plaintiff who was subject to plea to jurisdiction and provided reasonable opportunity to amend, that “[s]uch a dismissal is with prejudice because a plaintiff should not be permitted to relitigate jurisdiction once the issue has been finally determined”); Stallworth v. Ayers, 510 S.W.3d 187 , 188–89, 194 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2018See Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004) (noting that a judgment dismissing a case with prejudice was appropriate when the trial court lacked jurisdiction because of a sovereign immunity bar). 33 REVERSED AND RENDERED. ______________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on September 28, 2017 Opinion Delivered July 26, 2018 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 34

2022When a statute does this, the inquiry is “direct[ed] . . . to the statute’s elements and may require a court to consider those elements at both the jurisdictional and merits stages.” Id. (citing Lueck, 290 (sovereign immunity embodies two concepts: immunity from suit, which completely bars actions against governmental entities unless the legislature expressly consents, and immunity from liability, which protects governmental entities from judgments); State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex. 2009) (“Generally, governmental entities are immune from suit and liability under the doctrine of sover

2022When a statute does this, the inquiry is “direct[ed] . . . to the statute’s elements and may require a court to consider those elements at both the jurisdictional and merits stages.” Id. (citing Lueck, 290 (sovereign immunity embodies two concepts: immunity from suit, which completely bars actions against governmental entities unless the legislature expressly consents, and immunity from liability, which protects governmental entities from judgments); State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex. 2009) (“Generally, governmental entities are immune from suit and liability under the doctrine of sover

2026Sovereign immunity protects the public fisc by “leav[ing] to the Legislature the determination of when to allow tax resources to be shifted ‘away from their intended purposes toward defending lawsuits and paying judgments.’ ” Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117, 121 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Tex. Nat.

2025Mr. Law failed to plead a waiver of the DWC Employees’ respective sovereign immunity. .................................................... 9 PRAYER .................................................................................................. 13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 15 CERTIFICATE ........................................................................................ 15 APPENDIX .............................................................................................. 16 iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc

2025“Sovereign immunity protects various divisions of state government, including state universities, from lawsuits for damages unless the Constitution or a legislative enactment waives that immunity.” Pepper Lawson Horizon Int’l Group, LLC v. Texas S. Univ., 669 S.W.3d 205 , 210 (Tex. 2023) (emphasis added); see also Texas S. Univ. v. Villareal, 620 S.W.3d 899 , 904 (Tex. 2021); Lowe v. Texas Tech Univ., 540 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1976).

2010If such a complaint were enough to constitute the use of tangible personal property under the Act, the doctrine of sovereign immunity would be rendered a nullity.") (citing Lowe , 540 S.W.2d at 302 (Greenhill, C.J., concurring) ("It is difficult to imagine a tort case which does not involve the use, or nonuse, of some item of real or personal property; and to me, if there is a waiver in all cases where some item of personal property is either used or not used, there is virtually an unrestricted waiver of immunity.")).

2008Comm'n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co. , 39 S.W.3d 591, 597 (Tex. 2001), and "private parties cannot circumvent the State's sovereign immunity from suit by characterizing . . . a contract dispute, as a declaratory-judgment claim," IT-Davy , 74 S.W.3d at 856 .

2008Comm'n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 597 (Tex.2001), and “private parties cannot circumvent the State’s sovereign immunity from suit by characterizing ... a contract dispute, as a declaratory-judgment claim,” IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 856 .

2008See also City of LaPorte v. Barfield , 898 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex. 1995) ("'It is a well-established rule that for the Legislature to waive the State's sovereign immunity, it must do so by clear and unambiguous language.'") (citing Duhart v. State , 610 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex. 1980); Texas Prison Bd. v. Cabeen , 159 S.W.2d 523, 527-528 (Tex. Civ.

2006GOV’T CODE § 311.034 ("In order to preserve the legislature’s interest in managing state fiscal matters through the appropriations process, a statute shall not be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity unless the waiver is effected by clear and unambiguous language.”); City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.1995) (" 'It is a well-established rule that for the Legislature to waive the State’s sovereign immunity, it must do so by clear and unambiguous language.’ Duhart v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex.1980); accord Welch v. State, 148 S.W.2d 876, 879 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 19

2007Sovereign immunity is waived under section 101.021(2) when a governmental unit "has provided property that lacks an integral safety component and the lack of this integral component led to the plaintiff's injuries." Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 343 (quoting Kerrville State Hosp. v. Clark, 923 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex.1996)); Michael, 995 S.W.2d at 914-15 (immunity waived by housing authority responsible for inspecting and maintaining fence where pit bulls escaped through holes in fence and attacked passing children); see also Robinson v. Central Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.1989) (immunity waived

2007Sovereign immunity is waived under section 101.021(2) when a governmental unit “has provided property that lacks an integral safety component and the lack of this integral component led to the plaintiffs injuries.” Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 343 (quoting Kerrville State Hosp. v. Clark, 923 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex.1996)); Michael, 995 S.W.2d at 914-15 (immunity waived by housing authority responsible for inspecting and maintaining fence where pit bulls escaped through holes in fence and attacked passing children); see also Robinson v. Central Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.1989) (immunity waived

2020Dist., 34 S.W.3d at 555 ; see also Williams, 216 S.W.3d at 828–29 (holding that private party may not “circumvent the State’s sovereign immunity from suit” by mischaracterizing its claim as suit for declaratory judgment).

2017Further, that the jury and Court find and decree that the City of Seguin be liable to Plaintiff for the cost of the removal of the subject drainage culvert and the cost of the restoration of the property and any consequential and necessary and/or reasonable reconstruction of improvements situated on the property. “‘[P]rivate parties cannot circumvent the State’s sovereign immunity from suit by characterizing a suit for money damages, such as a contract dispute, as a declaratory-judgment claim.’” City of Hous. v. Williams, 216 S.W.3d 827, 828-29 (Tex. 2007) (quoting Tex. Nat.

2024See Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d 384, 392 (Tex. 2011) (“Creative pleading cannot be used to effect the loss or waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity.”). 6 When, as here, the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, “then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.” Bacon v. Texas Historical Comm’n, 411 S.W.3d 161, 170 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.). 11 Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith Reversed and Rendered Filed: March 22, 2024 12

2022“Sovereign immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 , 225–26 (Tex. 2004); see Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011) (explaining that sovereign immunity generally deprives trial court of jurisdiction over lawsuit in which plaintiff has sued State or state agency “unless the Legislature has consented to suit”).

2013“When performing governmental functions, political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity.” City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex.2011) (citing City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Tex.2007)); see also City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex.2009) (“Sovereign immunity protects the State from lawsuits for money damages.” (citing Texas Natural Res.

2013“When performing governmental functions, political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity.” City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex.2011) (citing City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Tex.2007)); see also City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex.2009) (“Sovereign immunity protects the State from lawsuits for money damages.” (citing Texas Natural Res.

2014Id. 1 Sovereign immunity generally protects the state against lawsuits for money damages; governmental immunity provides protection to subdivisions of the state, including cities.

2011Takings Clause Finally, we address West Hardin’s contention that Poole failed to state a viable takings claim. “[Sovereign immunity does not shield the State from a claim based upon a taking under Article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution, known as the ‘takings clause.’ ” State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 643 (Tex.2007); see Tex. Const, art.

2008See also City of LaPorte v. Barfield , 898 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex. 1995) ("'It is a well-established rule that for the Legislature to waive the State's sovereign immunity, it must do so by clear and unambiguous language.'") (citing Duhart v. State , 610 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex. 1980); Texas Prison Bd. v. Cabeen , 159 S.W.2d 523, 527-528 (Tex. Civ.

2006City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.1995). *394 Sovereign immunity and governmental immunity are frequently used interchangeably, but they represent distinct concepts.

2024Sovereign Immunity Because immunity implicates jurisdiction, see Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. 2012), we first address Regalado’s fourth issue challenging Appellees’ assertion of immunity.

2022Unless otherwise specified herein, our reference to “immunity” refers to immunity from suit, not immunity from liability. 15 Sovereign immunity “implicates subject-matter jurisdiction [but] does not necessarily equate to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Rusk State Hosp., 392 S.W.3d at 95 . 16 Immunity from liability is an affirmative defense that is waived if not pleaded.

2011See IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855-56 (stating that classifying a suit as a declaratory judgment action does not “change [the] suit’s underlying nature” and explaining that “private parties cannot circumvent the State’s sovereign immunity from suit by characterizing a suit for money damages ... as a declaratory-judgment claim”); City of Dallas v. Blanton, 200 S.W.3d 266, 280 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.) (rendering a judgment of dismissal because the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim, which concerned the construction of a Dallas city code section, sought to impose liability for damages); Nue

2011See IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855–56 (stating that classifying a suit as a declaratory judgment action does not ―change [the] suit’s underlying nature‖ and explaining that ―private parties cannot circumvent the State’s sovereign immunity from suit by characterizing a suit for money damages . . . as a declaratory-judgment claim‖); City of Dallas v. Blanton, 200 S.W.3d 266, 280 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (rendering a judgment of dismissal because the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim, which concerned the construction of a Dallas city code section, sought to impose liability for damages);

2025Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 , 843–44 (Tex. 2007) (“When a state official files a plea to the jurisdiction, the official is invoking the sovereign immunity from suit held by the government itself.”).

2024Koseoglu explained that construing § 51.014(a)(8) to exclude state officials would draw an artificial distinction between pleas filed by governmental entities and pleas filed by state officials asserting the entities’ sovereign immunity from suit. 233 S.W.3d at 844 .

1998See City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex.1993) (if the employee is protected from liability under the doctrine of official immunity, then the governmental entity’s sovereign immunity remains intact). 4 .

1994The Court also said, “conversely,” if an employee is protected from liability by qualified immunity, the governmental unit’s sovereign immunity remains intact Id.

2026Dist., 212 S.W.3d at 323–24 (“Sovereign immunity protects the State, its agencies, and its officials from lawsuits for damages.”).

2023Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320, 324 (Tex. 2006); see also Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 , 694 n.3 (Tex. 2003) (“Sovereign immunity refers to the State’s immunity from suit and liability.”).