489 S.W.3d 454
Tex.2016Background
- Plaintiffs sought and the trial court quickly declared Texas statutes and constitutional provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional and granted relief within about one minute of allowing paper filings.
- Texas Government Code §402.010 requires courts to serve notice and a copy of a pleading raising a state-constitutional challenge on the attorney general, and forbids entering a final judgment striking a statute before the 45th day after that notice.
- The trial court did not serve the attorney general or wait the statutorily required 45 days before declaring Texas law unconstitutional.
- Justice Willett (concurring in the dismissal) emphasized that the statute’s command is mandatory and contains no exceptions for exigency or momentous cases.
- Willett rejected any justification based on a recent probate court order that had invalidated some marriage provisions, explaining that nonprecedential probate orders do not excuse compliance with §402.010 and the trial court’s order exceeded the probate court’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §402.010 requires courts to notify the attorney general when state law is constitutionally challenged | Notice not required under the circumstances or was unnecessary given urgency | §402.010 is mandatory; court must notify AG whenever Texas law faces a constitutional attack | Court: §402.010’s notice requirement is mandatory, no exceptions |
| Whether a court may enter a final judgment invalidating state law before 45 days after notice to the AG | Immediate relief necessary; judicial action could be swift due to exigency | Statute forbids entering a final judgment before the 45th day after notice | Court: Statute prohibits entering a final judgment before the 45th day; the trial court violated §402.010 |
| Whether a prior probate-court order excused notice or bound other courts | Prior probate order changed status quo and justified immediate action | Probate orders from a non-superior court are nonprecedential and do not excuse compliance with §402.010 | Court: Probate court’s order did not excuse notification; the trial court exceeded that order’s scope |
| Whether exigency or public importance creates an exception to §402.010 | Momentous issues or urgency justify bypassing notice to avoid delay | Legislature provided no exceptions; statute’s text is categorical | Court: No exceptions; policy or urgency do not permit circumvention of §402.010 |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide)
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (criminal-law precedent addressing separation-of-powers challenge to a notice statute)
- State v. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. 2015) (Willett, J., dissenting) (discussion of notice and procedural posture in contested state-law enforcement matters)