Luke Hogan, on Behalf of Himself and Other Individuals Similarly Situated v. Southern Methodist University, and Other Affiliated Entities and Individuals, 688 S.W.3d 852

In Spring 2020, Southern Methodist University (SMU) transitioned all classes online due to government-mandated COVID-19 shutdowns.
Luke Hogan, a graduate student, paid full tuition and fees, but finished the semester online after campus closure and did not receive any refund.
Hogan sued SMU, claiming breach-of-contract for failing to provide the in-person education allegedly promised.
In 2021, Texas enacted the Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA), shielding schools from monetary liability for pandemic-related changes.
The case came to the Texas Supreme Court on a certified question from the Fifth Circuit: does applying the PLPA to Hogan’s claim violate the Texas Constitution’s retroactivity clause?

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the PLPA, as applied to Hogan’s breach-of-contract claim, violate Texas’s constitutional retroactivity prohibition?	The PLPA retroactively removes his right to seek damages, violating settled contractual and constitutional rights.	The PLPA clarifies unsettled law, only bars uncertain claims, and codifies existing impossibility doctrines without upsetting settled expectations.	No; the PLPA does not violate the retroactivity clause because there was no settled expectation of recovery for government-forced campus closure.

DeCordova v. City of Galveston, 4 Tex. 470 (Tex. 1849) (early precedent on constitutional retroactivity, distinguishing between literal and functional applications of the bar)
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010) (sets out modern three-part inquiry for unconstitutional retroactivity)
Centex Corp. v. Dalton, 840 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. 1992) (discusses common-law impossibility doctrine in contract law)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (clarifies that retroactivity bar protects settled expectations, not all retrospective effects)