Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney, 691 S.W.3d 55

Background

Feb. 18–22, 2022: Texas Attorney General issued an opinion concluding certain puberty blockers and cross‑sex hormones for minors can constitute "child abuse," and Governor Abbott issued a directive instructing the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to follow that opinion and investigate such reports without regard to medical necessity. DFPS issued a public statement adopting that approach.
Plaintiffs: Jane and John Doe (parents of a 16‑year‑old, "Mary," diagnosed with gender dysphoria and receiving gender‑affirming care) and Dr. Megan Mooney (psychologist treating transgender youth). Shortly after the DFPS statement, DFPS placed Jane on administrative leave and opened an investigation of the family.
Claims: Plaintiffs sued DFPS, its Commissioner, and the Governor (official‑capacity) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the DFPS statement is an invalid rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Commissioner acted ultra vires, and the directive/rule is unconstitutionally vague and violates parental‑rights/due process and equal‑protection guarantees.
Trial court: After an evidentiary hearing, denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction restraining DFPS (and initially the Governor) from enforcing or applying the Attorney General opinion, Governor’s directive, or DFPS statement to investigate, prosecute, or impose reporting requirements based solely on gender‑affirming care.
This appeal/interlocutory review: The court of appeals affirmed denial of the plea and the injunction as to DFPS and the Commissioner, but held Plaintiffs lacked standing against the Governor, dismissed claims against him, and vacated the injunction as to the Governor.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of APA/ultra vires/constitutional claims	The DFPS statement is a new binding rule that has been applied (investigations, leave) and causes imminent injury; review under Tex. Gov't Code §2001.038 is proper	Claims are premature because investigations are ongoing and no final agency action has occurred	Claims against DFPS/Commissioner are ripe; trial court correctly retained jurisdiction over those claims
Standing of Dr. Mooney and parents against DFPS/Commissioner	Dr. Mooney faces concrete imminent harms: ethical conflict, loss of clients/license, criminal exposure; parents face loss of care for Mary and family disruption	Defendants claimed insufficient concrete injury for Dr. Mooney and that Plaintiffs cannot trace injuries to the Governor	Dr. Mooney and the Doe parents have standing to sue DFPS and the Commissioner; Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the Governor
Sovereign immunity / APA waiver for rule challenge	DFPS statement is a "rule" under the APA (general applicability, binding effect on private parties) and thus §2001.038 waives immunity for a declaratory action	DFPS statement concerns only internal management/discretionary investigatory decisions and does not trigger the APA	The statement qualifies as a rule affecting private rights; sovereign immunity is waived for APA claims against DFPS/Commissioner
Scope and propriety of the temporary injunction	Needed to preserve status quo and prevent irreparable harm (loss of care, license, employment, stigma) while merits are resolved	Injunction improperly restrains DFPS investigatory discretion, is overbroad/statewide, and enjoins acts DFPS cannot take (prosecute, impose reporting)	The injunction (as to DFPS and Commissioner) was not an abuse of discretion: it enjoins application of the new DFPS rule/policy, preserves pre‑Feb 22, 2022 status quo, and may be statewide; claims against Governor dismissed for lack of standing

Key Cases Cited

In re Abbott, 645 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2022) (Governor directive nonbinding on DFPS; limits on injunction scope as to nonparties)
Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (subject‑matter jurisdiction required to decide agency disputes)
Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction review)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity)
Patel v. Texas Dep't of Licensing & Regul., 469 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2015) (ripeness/standing where plaintiffs face realistic threat of enforcement)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (temporary injunction standards; preserve status quo)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental‑rights principles)
Entertainment Publ'ns, Inc. v. Combs, 292 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (agency letters/memoranda can constitute rules under the APA; statewide injunctive relief upheld)
Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm'n v. Advocates for Patient Access, Inc., 399 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (upholding statewide temporary injunction against enforcement of allegedly invalid administrative rule)