Don Zimmerman v. City of Austin And Spencer Cronk, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of Austin, 620 S.W.3d 473

Austin City Council allocated $150,000 in its FY2019–2020 budget to Austin Public Health (APH) for logistical support (transportation, childcare, case management) to improve abortion access; funds to be awarded via competitive RFA and expressly barred from going to abortion providers or their affiliates.
Zimmerman, an Austin homeowner/taxpayer, sued the City and City Manager seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the UDJA and ultra vires principles, asserting two bases: (1) the budgeted expenditures violate Texas criminal abortion statutes (allegedly still effective despite Roe v. Wade), and (2) the expenditures violate the Texas Constitution Gift Clause.
The City moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction: arguing Zimmerman cannot enforce criminal statutes, the challenged abortion statutes are void post-Roe, and the Gift Clause claim is unripe because no contracts or disbursements had occurred.
The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction: dismissed the statutory/ultra vires claim with prejudice and dismissed the Gift Clause claim without prejudice as not ripe.
The court of appeals affirmed: (1) Zimmerman’s reliance on unrepealed criminal abortion statutes fails because those statutes are void under Roe and subsequent Texas authority, so they cannot support standing/ultra vires relief; (2) the Gift Clause claim is unripe because multiple contingencies (RFA, bids, contracts, council approval) meant no concrete injury had occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zimmerman may enjoin the City based on alleged conflict with Texas criminal abortion statutes (standing / ultra vires).	Unrepealed Texas abortion statutes remain on the books and must be obeyed; City’s budget would aid abortions and thus violate those statutes.	Roe v. Wade rendered those statutes unconstitutional and void; Zimmerman cannot privately enforce criminal statutes and lacks standing to rely on them.	Held for Defendants — statutes are void post‑Roe (and under later Texas authority); first claim dismissed with prejudice.
Whether the Gift Clause challenge is ripe for review.	Allocation in the budget creates substantial risk actual disbursements will occur, so review should proceed before funds are spent.	Claim is premature: no RFA, no bids accepted, no contracts negotiated or approved — any expenditure is contingent.	Held for Defendants — claim not ripe; dismissal without prejudice.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (facially invalidated Texas criminal abortion statutes)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception allows suits to enjoin officials acting beyond legal authority)
Pidgeon v. Turner, 538 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2017) (discusses effect of federal decisions on state laws and contains the footnote on unrepealed statutes remaining on the books)
Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2020) (an unconstitutional law is void; convictions under such statutes are invalid)
Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction)
Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) (ripeness/advisory opinion doctrine in context of pre‑enforcement challenges)