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 .

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)).

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)).

2024Page 193 of 740 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. Strayhorn, 148 S.W.3d 644, 649 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied).

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 Walker County ESD No. 3 v. City of Huntsville Page 10 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).

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

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 .

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

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

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).

2022See id. at 837 (plaintiff’s ultra vires claim failed as a matter of law where only named government official was dismissed from the lawsuit). 17 Act, however, expressly states that a corporation is “not a political subdivision or a political corporation for purposes of the laws of this state,” and it also prohibits a government entity from bestowing any “attributes of sovereignty” on the corporation.

2021See Turner, 534 S.W.3d at 120-22 . 4 that appeal, we concluded that (1) Hotze, as a taxpayer, had standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, (2) Hotze pleaded a valid ultra vires claim against the Mayor, and (3) the City’s sovereign immunity with respect to Hotze’s declaratory judgment action was waived under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act.

2021See id. at 124, 126, 127 .

2021Pension System I, 549 S.W.3d at 580 .

2021See id.

2017See ids="7301546" index="154" url="https://cite. case.law/sw3d/284/366/">id. ; see also Tex. A & M Univ., Mark Hussey, Ph.D. v. Starks, 500 S.W.3d 560 , 571 (Tex. App.-Waco 2016, no pet.) (appropriate defendants in an ultra vires action are those officials whose acts or omissions allegedly violated the plaintiff's rights; where plaintiff did not allege in his petition that the official he sued was involved in any of the alleged unconstitutional retaliatory conduct against him, he did not assert a valid ultra vires claim).

2015See City of New Braunfels v. Tovar, 463 S.W.3d 913, 919 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.) (citing Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Transp., Inc., 357 S.W.3d 691 , 701–02 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.)).

2015See Texas State Bd. of Plumbing Exam'rs v. Associated Plumbing–Heating–Cooling Contractors of Tex., Inc., 31 S.W.3d 750, 753 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. dism'd by agr.) (“When a plaintiff files a proceeding that only challenges the validity of an administrative rule, the parties are bound by the APA and may not seek relief under the UDJA because such relief would be redundant.”). 8 For the same reason, even if we considered Gomez's rule challenge to be a valid ultra vires claim under the UDJA, he has failed to establish a justiciable controversy and therefore lacks standing under the UDJA as w

2015See Texas State Bd. of Plumbing Exam'rs v. Associated Plumbing–Heating–Cooling Contractors of Tex., Inc., 31 S.W.3d 750, 753 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. dism'd by agr.) (“When a plaintiff files a proceeding that only challenges the validity of an administrative rule, the parties are bound by the APA and may not seek relief under the UDJA because such relief would be redundant.”). 8 For the same reason, even if we considered Gomez's rule challenge to be a valid ultra vires claim under the UDJA, he has failed to establish a justiciable controversy and therefore lacks standing under the UDJA as w

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

2014See Sunset Transp., 357 S.W.3d at 702 ; see also Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554 . 124 .