Texas Supreme Court Ruling Reinforces Jurisdiction is Always First

JURISDICTION
Standing

This case concerns a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act in a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants organized efforts to sue those who may be or may be perceived to be violating the Texas Heartbeat Act.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, which the trial court denied.

After the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals held that the TCPA does not apply to the plaintiffs’ claims.

It therefore affirmed the trial court’s order.

The defendants petitioned for review.

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred by determining the TCPA’s applicability before addressing the disputed jurisdictional question of the plaintiffs’ standing.

The Court explained that the standing inquiry is not influenced by the TCPA’s multi-step framework, the second step of which requires a plaintiff to show clear and specific evidence of each element of every claim.

That heightened standard is relevant only if the TCPA applies.

But whether it applies (or, if it does, whether a plaintiff can satisfy the clear-and-specific-evidence requirement), are merits questions that a court may not resolve without first assuring itself that it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court further held that under its precedents, a pending TCPA motion cannot create jurisdiction when a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the underlying case.

A claim for fees and sanctions under the TCPA can prevent an appeal from becoming moot, but only if a court with subject-matter jurisdiction had already determined that the TCPA movant prevails.

If the plaintiffs here lack standing, then no court ever had jurisdiction to declare the defendants to be prevailing parties.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings.