Henry v. Cox
520 S.W.3d 28
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Galveston County created a county-level Director of Justice Administration (DJA) position in 2000; Bonita Quiroga was hired and later earned $113,000 before being fired by County Judge Mark Henry in 2014 and ratified by the Commissioners Court.
- District judges sought to restore Quiroga to a newly restructured, court-only Director of Court Administration (DCA) position with a proposed salary range of $85,000–$120,000; the Commissioners Court approved a differently named “Court Manager” position with a starting salary set at $63,695 (range to be $57,705–$63,695 after statutory changes).
- Judge Lonnie Cox (on behalf of the administrative judges) sued, obtained a temporary injunction ordering reinstatement of Quiroga to the new court-only position and payment of her prior $113,000 salary; the court of appeals affirmed in part.
- The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court properly (1) bound only County Judge Henry rather than the Commissioners Court/other commissioners and (2) ordered a specific salary outside the commissioners-set range.
- Statutory framework: Tex. Gov’t Code § 75.401(d) (amended 2015) authorizes the commissioners court to set the salary range for a court administrator while the judges served determine whether compensation within that range is reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cox) | Defendant's Argument (Henry/Commissioners Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could bind only County Judge Henry without joining the Commissioners Court/other commissioners | Suing Judge Henry was adequate; visiting judge’s injunction could command reinstatement and pay; other commissioners participated so no prejudice | Other commissioners/Commissioners Court were indispensable; order could not compel actions that require the Commissioners Court as a body | The court must join the Commissioners Court or individual commissioners; failure to join indispensable parties deprived trial court of authority to bind them |
| Whether a district court can order a commissioners court to pay a specific salary outside the commissioners-set range | The judiciary’s supervisory power allows courts to order a specific salary when commissioners set an unreasonable range; otherwise injunctions would be advisory and ineffective | Statute and separation of powers reserve setting the salary range to the commissioners court; judges may only declare range unreasonable and force reconsideration, not pick a salary | Trial court lacked authority to dictate a specific salary outside the statutory range; judges can require commissioners to reset the range but cannot prescribe a salary |
| Scope of judicial supervisory power over county budget/staffing decisions | Needed to protect judicial independence and ensure court operations; courts must be able to secure necessary funding for court personnel | Supervisory power is limited; courts cannot usurp the commissioners’ legislative/ fiscal functions | Judicial supervisory power is real but bounded: courts may remedy illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion, but cannot substitute policy judgments for commissioners |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaal v. Townsend, 14 S.W. 365 (Tex. 1890) (mandamus cannot command a county judge to perform acts that require action by the commissioners court as a body)
- Vondy v. Commissioners Court of Uvalde County, 620 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. 1981) (district court may compel payment for officials necessary to court functioning; distinguishes joinder requirements where commissioners court was named)
- Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. 1979) (recognizes judiciary’s authority and role under the Constitution)
- Ector County v. Stringer, 843 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. 1992) (limits on judicial supervisory power: courts may set aside commissioners’ actions that are illegal, unreasonable, or arbitrary)
- Yoakum County v. Gaines County, 163 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. 1942) (principles on respect for commissioners courts’ decisions and limits on judicial interference)