Finance Commission v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566

Separation of powers is foundational; Texas Constitution divides legislative, executive, and judicial powers with explicit prohibitions on cross-branch exercises.
2003 amendment added Section 50(u) allowing select state agencies to interpret home equity provisions, with interpretations given constitutional weight.
2008 Legislature authorized interpretative power to Finance Commission and Credit Union Commission under Section 50(u); interpretations subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Homeowners challenged several interpretations adopted by the Commissions; the trial court and court of appeals partially invalidated interpretations; the case progressed to the Texas Supreme Court.
Key issues include whether Section 50(u) precludes judicial review, whether Homeowners have standing, and the proper standard of review for interpretations.
Court ultimately held Section 50(u) does not foreclose review, Homeowners have standing, and certain interpretations are invalid (E and N) while others (G) are upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Section 50(u) bar judicial review of interpretations?	Homeowners: interpretations are legal rules;section 50(u)Purpose is to stabilize meaning; bar would thwart judicial oversight.	Commissions: interpretations are definitive and insulated from review; Section 50(u) places them on equal footing with courts.	Judicial review is not precluded by §50(u)
Do Homeowners have standing to challenge interpretations?	Homeowners have imminent, concrete interest in future loans; interpretations affect their rights.	Safe harbor limits injuries; borrowers lack direct injury from past compliance.	Homeowners have standing to challenge interpretations
What standard of review applies to the Commissions’ interpretations?	Deference to agency interpretations should be limited; §50(u) does not grant unreviewable power.	Interpretations should be given deference similar to appellate court interpretations.	De novo review; agency interpretations are not entitled to greater deference than courts' interpretations
Are the specific interpretations invalid or valid?	Some interpretations misalign with constitutional text (E, N, etc.).	Interpretations clarify meaning consistent with §50; some interpretations align with purposes.	§50(a)(6)(E) interpretation invalid; §50(a)(6)(N) interpretation invalid; §50(g) interpretation valid

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (U.S. 1988) (separation of powers and nondelegation principles cited)
Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) (standing and justiciability in unique constitutional contexts)
Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing and administrative-law considerations in state agency actions)