valid ultra vires claim in Texas

2025To assert a valid ultra vires claim, the plaintiff “must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.” Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 .

2024Analysis focuses on the allegations in the pleadings, and “[w]hether a claimant has alleged a valid ultra vires claim is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Id.

2025Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, 643 S.W.3d 387 , 397 n.4 (Tex. 2022) (“Our precedents do not allow parties to invoke a waiver of immunity on conclusory or barebones pleading—they require more detailed pleading that is simply absent from the petition.”) “To determine whether a party has asserted a valid ultra-vires claim, [courts] must construe the relevant 24 statutory provisions, apply them to the facts as alleged in the pleadings, and determine whether those facts constitute acts beyond the official’s authority or establish a failure to perform a purely ministerial act.” Tabrizi v. City of Au

2022None of the cases relied on by Hunnicutt hold that a valid ultra-vires claim can be maintained on the basis of tortious conduct.8 Though Hunnicutt argues that appellants’ pleadings clearly state that Giusto acted without legal authority, merely asserting legal conclusions or labeling a defendant’s actions as “ultra vires” or “without legal authority” is not sufficient—“what matters is whether the facts alleged constitute actions beyond the governmental actor’s statutory authority, properly construed.” Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691, 702 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, n

2025But if his actions are not outside of his authority or in conflict with the law, “then the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and governmental immunity will bar the suit.” Id. (citing Matzen v. McLane, 659 S.W.3d 381 , 388 (Tex. 2021)).

2024“If the challenged actions ‘were not truly 14 outside the officer’s authority or in conflict with the law,’ then the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and governmental immunity will bar the suit.” Id. at 332-33 (quoting Matzen v. McLane, 659 S.W.3d 381 , 388 (Tex. 2021)).

2015See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372-73 (ultra vires suit "must not complain of a government officer's exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act"); Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), 307 S.W.3d 505 at 516 n. 8 (quoting Hendee v. Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354, 368-69 (Tex. App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied) (when analyzing whether plaintiff has alleged ultra vires acts, we construe the relevant statutory or constitutional provisions that define

2015See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372-73 (ultra vires suit "must not complain of a government officer's exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act"); Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), 307 S.W.3d 505 at 516 n. 8 (quoting Hendee v. Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354, 368-69 (Tex. App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied) (when analyzing whether plaintiff has alleged ultra vires acts, we construe the relevant statutory or constitutional provisions that define

2023See Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 338-39 (Tex. 2006) (explaining that it is proper to examine subject-matter jurisdiction on claim-by-claim basis because “it is proper for a trial court to dismiss claims over which it does not have subject matter jurisdiction but retain claims in the same case over which it has jurisdiction”). 7 Status as a Warehouse District Venue In its first claim, Austin Nightlife alleged that the City Officials acted ultra vires by failing to recognize that Summit Lounge is located within the City’s Warehouse District and is therefore entitled under Section 9-2-30(A)(2)

2007Cf. Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 342 (Tex.2006) (holding the fact suit is brought as a declaratory judgment action does not alter the court’s jurisdictional analysis).

2010See Heinrich , 284 S.W.3d at 372 ; McLane Co. v. Strayhorn , 148 S.W.3d 644, 649 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, pet. denied).

2010See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 ; McLane Co. v. Strayhom, 148 S.W.3d 644, 649 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. denied).

2025Young suggests that rights he has in his land and deer breeding permit entitle him to raise due process claims relating to the euthanization of his breeder deer, but he cannot use a protected interest in one type of property to establish a 9 Matzen, 659 S.W.3d at 388. 10 See Matzen, 659 S.W.3d at 388 (“If … the actions alleged to be ultra vires were not truly outside the officer’s authority or in conflict with the law, the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and therefore has not bypassed sovereign immunity.”); Klumb, 458 S.W.3d at 13 (“[I]mmunity from suit is not waived if the

2025Young suggests that rights he has in his land and deer breeding permit entitle him to raise due process claims relating to the euthanization of his breeder deer, but he cannot use a protected interest in one type of property to establish a 9 Matzen, 659 S.W.3d at 388. 10 See Matzen, 659 S.W.3d at 388 (“If … the actions alleged to be ultra vires were not truly outside the officer’s authority or in conflict with the law, the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and therefore has not bypassed sovereign immunity.”); Klumb, 458 S.W.3d at 13 (“[I]mmunity from suit is not waived if the

2025“If the challenged actions were not truly outside the officer’s authority or in conflict with the law, then the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and governmental immunity will bar the suit.” Id.

2024To assert a valid ultra vires claim, the plaintiff “must not complain of a government officer’s exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.” Schroeder v. Escalera Ranch Owners' Ass'n, 646 S.W.3d 329 , 332 (Tex. 2022) (quoting City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009)).

2025Compare, e.g., Houston Belt, 487 S.W.3d at 168-69 (directing courts to assess the pleadings to vet whether a plaintiff has stated a valid ultra vires claim); Tex. Tel.

2022Belt, 487 S.W.3d at 158 ). 5 challenged actions “were not truly outside the officer’s authority or in conflict with the law,” then the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and governmental immunity will bar the suit. 13 Mandamus seeking to compel action by a public official “falls within the ultra vires rationale.” 14 Accordingly, writs of mandamus can issue against a public official to compel the official to perform a ministerial act. 15 “An act is ministerial when the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed by the official with sufficient certainty that nothing is left

2025Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, 643 S.W.3d 387 , 397 n.4 (Tex. 2022) (“Our precedents do not allow parties to invoke a waiver of immunity on conclusory or barebones pleading—they require more detailed pleading that is simply absent from the petition.”) “To determine whether a party has asserted a valid ultra-vires claim, [courts] must construe the relevant 24 statutory provisions, apply them to the facts as alleged in the pleadings, and determine whether those facts constitute acts beyond the official’s authority or establish a failure to perform a purely ministerial act.” Tabrizi v. City of Au

2022“To determine whether a party has asserted a valid ultra vires claim, we must construe the relevant statutory provisions, apply them to the facts as alleged in the pleadings, and determine whether those facts constitute acts beyond the official's authority or establish a failure to perform a purely ministerial act.” Tabrizi v. City of Austin, 551 S.W.3d 290, 298 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.).

2010While private parties may seek declaratory relief in connection with an alleged ultra vires act, “[a] declaratory judgment requires a justiciable controversy as to the rights and status of parties actually before the court for adjudication, and the declaration sought must actually resolve the controversy.” Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d 158, 163-64 (Tex.2004).

2009While private parties may seek declaratory relief in connection with an alleged ultra vires act, "[a] declaratory judgment requires a justiciable controversy as to the rights and status of parties actually before the court for adjudication, and the declaration sought must actually resolve the controversy." Brooks v. Northglen Ass'n , 141 S.W.3d 158, 163-64 (Tex. 2004).

2023“To assert a valid ultra vires claim, the plaintiff ‘must not complain of a government officer’s exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.’” Id. (quoting Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 ).

2014Hearings, 351 S.W.3d 290, 301 (Tex.2011) (illustrating limitations on use of UDJA to recover attorney’s fees not obtainable though the underlying statutory waiver that confers jurisdiction on the trial court). 122 .See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372-73 (ultra vires suit “must not complain of a government officer's exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act”); Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., 357 S.W.3d 691, 701-02 (Tex.App.-Austin 2011, pet. denied) ("To determine wheth

2025Id. at 349 ; Staff, 510 S.W.3d at 454-55 .

2023Colorado County, 510 S.W.3d at 439, 454 . 46 Regarding Section 614.023(c), Leonard alleged that on March 18, 2019, Stahr provided him a “Notice of Unpaid Administrative Leave and Confidentiality Order,” which stated that “[a]n investigation [would] be conducted” and that Leonard would be interviewed.

2014Dir. of Dep’t of Agric. & Env’t, 600 S.W.2d at 265-70 .

2013See Director of Dep’t of Agric., 600 S.W.2d at 265-70 ; Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360 , 190 S.W.2d 709, 710-12 (1945); Creedmoor-Maha, 307 S.W.3d at 515-16 .

2025STANDARD OF REVIEW The Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code to “control the flood of frivolous lawsuits being filed in Texas courts by prison inmates,” as these suits “consume many valuable judicial resources with little offsetting benefits.” Jackson v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice- Institutional Div., 28 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2000, pet. denied).

2025See Hollins, 620 S.W.3d at 410 (“[a]s a sovereign entity, the State has an intrinsic right to . . . enforce its own laws.” (alteration in original)).

2025Ass’n, 653 S.W.3d at 254 (holding, where rules constrained agency action, that pleaded conduct taken in contravention of those rules supported an ultra vires claim). 5.

2025Young suggests that rights he has in his land and deer breeding permit entitle him to raise due process claims relating to the euthanization of his breeder deer, but he cannot use a protected interest in one type of property to establish a 9 Matzen, 659 S.W.3d at 388. 10 See Matzen, 659 S.W.3d at 388 (“If … the actions alleged to be ultra vires were not truly outside the officer’s authority or in conflict with the law, the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and therefore has not bypassed sovereign immunity.”); Klumb, 458 S.W.3d at 13 (“[I]mmunity from suit is not waived if the

2025See City of N. Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd., 340 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.); City of Carrollton v. McPhee, 2009 WL 2596145 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 25, 2009, no pet.). 12 alleges here.35 “An officer acts without legal authority if he exceeds the bounds of his granted authority or if his acts conflict with the law itself.”36 But if “the actions alleged to be ultra vires were not truly outside the officer’s authority or in conflict with the law, the plaintiff has not stated a valid ultra vires claim and therefore has not bypassed sovereign immunity.”37 In R

2025Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, 643 S.W.3d 387 , 397 n.4 (Tex. 2022) (“Our precedents do not allow parties to invoke a waiver of immunity on conclusory or barebones pleading—they require more detailed pleading that is simply absent from the petition.”) “To determine whether a party has asserted a valid ultra-vires claim, [courts] must construe the relevant 24 statutory provisions, apply them to the facts as alleged in the pleadings, and determine whether those facts constitute acts beyond the official’s authority or establish a failure to perform a purely ministerial act.” Tabrizi v. City of Au

2024Moreover, a valid ultra vires claim also “requires that the remedy [sought] be prospective in nature—i.e., compelling legal compliance going forward, as opposed to awarding retrospective relief to remedy past violations.” City of Austin v. Utility Assocs., Inc., 517 S.W.3d 300, 309 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, pet. denied).

2023See City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523 , 530 (Tex. 2022) (stating that a police department’s internal policies, in and of themselves, are not “laws”); City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009) (asserting that a valid ultra vires claim seeks to require state officials to comply with statutory or constitutional provisions); Alphonso Crutch Life Support 8 Ctr. v. Williams, No. 03-13-00789-CV, 2015 WL 7950713 , at *8 (Tex. App.— Austin Nov. 30, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (dismissing ultra vires claim based on allegations that officials violated their own rules in