in Re State of Texas, 466 S.W.3d 783

Background

Angelique Naylor (petitioner) and Sabina Daly were married in Massachusetts and later sought dissolution in Travis County, Texas; Daly initially contested jurisdiction citing Texas law barring recognition of same-sex marriages.
At a two-day hearing the parties reached an agreement; the trial court orally granted a divorce from the bench pursuant to that agreement and announced the divorce was granted.
The State of Texas (via the Attorney General’s Office) appeared in court the next day and filed a post-judgment petition to intervene asserting Texas law (constitutional and statutory) bars trial courts from granting divorces to same-sex couples; it also raised a plea to the jurisdiction.
The trial court refused to entertain the State’s post-judgment intervention as untimely and signed the decree; it did not set aside the oral judgment.
The court of appeals dismissed the State’s appeal for lack of appellate standing; the State sought review and alternatively requested mandamus relief from this Court.
The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: the State lacked standing to appeal (not a party of record, virtual-representation doctrine inapplicable), and mandamus relief was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Naylor/Daly)	Held
Whether the State had appellate standing to challenge the divorce decree	The State argued it timely intervened (or was virtually represented) and has a sovereign interest to defend Texas law, entitling it to appeal	Parties argued the State did not timely intervene and is not a party of record; thus it lacks appellate standing	Held: No standing — intervention was post-judgment and untimely; virtual-representation doctrine does not apply; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Whether equitable considerations can create appellate standing for the State	The State urged equity should allow third‑party appeal given the importance of defending state law	Parties and majority argued standing is jurisdictional and not expandable by equitable considerations	Held: Equity cannot create appellate jurisdiction; standing is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite
Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing post-judgment intervention	State argued the court should have allowed intervention to resolve a threshold jurisdictional/constitutional question	Parties argued the State delayed despite having opportunity and the court reasonably denied late intervention	Held: Even assuming jurisdiction, no abuse of discretion — trial court properly declined to set aside final judgment to allow late intervention
Whether mandamus relief to vacate the decree was appropriate	State sought mandamus as alternate relief to prevent enforcement of a decree it says trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter	Parties argued State did not seek mandamus in court of appeals and offered no compelling reason for Supreme Court to consider unreviewed mandamus	Held: Denied — relator failed to show compelling reason for bypassing the court of appeals and mandamus relief was not warranted on the merits

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction and jurisdictional questions are reviewed de novo)
Motor Vehicle Bd. of Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers Ass’n, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 108 (Tex. 1999) (articulation of the virtual-representation doctrine permitting third-party appeals in narrow circumstances)
First Alief Bank v. White, 682 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. 1984) (post‑judgment intervention is untimely absent setting aside the judgment)
S & A Rest. Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. 1995) (judgment is rendered when announced in open court; oral rendition is final when announced as a present act)
Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1991) (non‑parties may seek mandamus only upon establishing a justiciable interest)
Middleton v. Murff, 689 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1985) (even void judgments are subject to procedural limits; post‑judgment intervention requires setting aside judgment)
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (U.S. 2013) (recognition that marriage regulation has been traditionally within state authority; federal limits on DOMA not dispositive of state definitions of marriage)