Opinion No.
Background
- Capital Metro provides special transit for City residents with disabilities after City withdrew from Capital Metro in 1988.
- Legislature enacted §451.610 to require continued services post-withdrawal and §451.616 to fund via sales-tax refunds.
- Comptroller withholds from the City’s sales-tax refunds to reimburse Capital Metro for disability services.
- Question presented: whether these statutes are retroactive under Tex. Const. art. I, §16.
- Texas Supreme Court previously held no vested rights bar legislature from changing laws; municipalities have no vested rights against the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are §§451.610 and 451.616 retroactive under Tex. Constitution art. I, §16? | City argues retroactivity due to new duties. | AG argues statute operates prospectively. | Not retroactive; statutes valid. |
| Do withdrawn cities have to fund disability services under these statutes? | City argues no ongoing obligation. | Statutes impose prospective funding obligation. | Capital Metro may charge the City. |
| Does the City have vested rights impeded by funding requirement? | City asserts impairment of vested rights. | Municipalities have no vested rights against State. | No vested-right impairment; permitted funding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (retroactivity requires changes in past conduct; not inferred from changed expectations)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (statutory changes may be prospective; intent governs retroactivity)
- Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1998) (no vested-right protection against change in law affecting municipalities)
- Tooke v. Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (municipalities have no inherent vested rights against State)
- Deacon v. City of Euless, 405 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1966) (cities created by Legislature; no sovereign immunity against statutory change)