in Re Texas Education Agency and Michael L. Williams, Commissioner Of Education for the State of Texas
441 S.W.3d 747
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- American Youthworks, Two Azleway, and Honors Academy operate Texas open-enrollment charter schools and faced mandatory charter revocation under Tex. Educ. Code §§ 12.115-.116 for failing accountability standards for three consecutive years.
- Youthworks appealed the Commissioner’s revocation to SOAH and also filed a declaratory-judgment suit in Travis County challenging the statutes/rules as retroactive, procedurally deficient, ultra vires, and invalidly adopted; it sought temporary injunctive relief to stay revocation.
- The Commissioner filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity and that SOAH decisions on revocation are final and unreviewable (Tex. Educ. Code § 12.116(c)(2)); the district court denied the plea and granted temporary injunctions.
- The Commissioner filed accelerated appeals from the denial of the plea and from the temporary-injunction orders and invoked Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b), which automatically stays “all other proceedings in the trial court” when a plea-to-jurisdiction denial is appealed.
- While the appeals were pending and the automatic stay invoked, the trial court held hearings and entered orders denying the Commissioner’s supersedeas (refusing to permit supersedeas of the temporary injunctions).
- The court of appeals granted mandamus relief, holding the trial court abused its discretion by conducting proceedings and signing orders during the statutory stay and that mandamus was the appropriate remedy because the stay could not be recovered on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could deny the State’s supersedeas after the State appealed denial of plea to jurisdiction under § 51.014(b) | Charter schools: court may preserve injunction; supersedeas denial appropriate to protect schools during appeal | Commissioner: § 51.014(b) automatically stays all other trial-court proceedings once he appealed denial of plea to jurisdiction, prohibiting further trial-court action | Trial court abused discretion by holding hearings and denying supersedeas after automatic stay; orders must be vacated |
| Whether the automatic stay in § 51.014(b) is discretionary | Charter schools: trial court retained discretion to refuse supersedeas | Commissioner: § 51.014(b) is statutory and leaves no room for discretion | Court: stay is statutory and mandatory; no discretion to proceed |
| Whether mandamus is available remedy for violation of the automatic stay | Charter schools: implied that ordinary appeal suffices or that relief unnecessary | Commissioner: mandamus necessary because the loss of the automatic stay cannot be remedied on appeal | Court: mandamus appropriate because orders were not appealable and loss of stay cannot be recovered on appeal |
| Whether alternative bases (jurisdiction, merits of injunction) required resolution | Charter schools: merits justified injunction and denial of plea was wrong | Commissioner: jurisdictional bar and other defenses | Court: did not reach alternative bases because stay issue was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 226 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus standard: show clear abuse and no adequate appellate remedy)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus principles)
- Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, P.C. v. Bellush, 61 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (statutory stay under § 51.014 is mandatory)
- Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Gragg, 962 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998) (same: stay prohibits further trial proceedings)
- City of Houston v. Swinerton Builders, Inc., 233 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (trial-court acts violating appellate stay are prohibited)
- In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2011) (assessing adequacy of appellate remedy when mandamus sought)
- In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. 2008) (balancing benefits of mandamus vs. detriments)
- Oryx Capital Int’l, Inc. v. Sage Apts., L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005) (trial court prohibited from acting after appellate stay)