Roger Borgelt, Mark Pulliam, Jay Wiley, and the State of Texas v. Austin Firefighters Association, Iaff Local 975 City of Austin And Marc A. Ott, in His Official Capacity as the City Manager of the City of Austin, 692 S.W.3d 288

The case involves a challenge to Article 10 of a collective-bargaining agreement between the City of Austin and its firefighters’ union, which provides paid “Association Business Leave” (ABL) for union-related activities.
Petitioners (including an Austin taxpayer and the State of Texas) allege that ABL is being improperly used for private or political union purposes, effectively constituting an unconstitutional “gift” of public resources in violation of the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clauses.
Article 10 grants 5,600 hours annually for union business, with the union president eligible for the equivalent of full-time leave.
The trial court and court of appeals upheld Article 10 as facially constitutional, ruling that it serves a public purpose and is controlled by contractual and managerial oversight.
The trial court awarded attorneys’ fees and sanctions to the union under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) after dismissing some plaintiffs’ claims.
The Texas Supreme Court reviewed both the Gift Clause challenge and the propriety of the TCPA dismissal and related sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Article 10 of the CBA violate the Texas Gift Clauses?	Article 10 unlawfully grants public funds to a private association.	Article 10 provides return consideration and supports public purpose.	Article 10 does not facially violate the Gift Clauses.
Is ABL being used for improper, non-public purposes?	ABL is used for political/charitable/private events, not public good.	Any such uses are breaches, not authorized by the contract itself.	Improper individual uses do not render Article 10 unconstitutional.
Does the CBA retain sufficient public control over funds?	The City rarely denies ABL requests, so there is inadequate control.	Control mechanisms and limitations exist in text and practice.	The agreement includes adequate controls and oversight.
Was dismissal/sanctions under the TCPA proper?	The suit raised serious constitutional questions, not just harassment.	The suit was meritless and intended to chill union association.	TCPA dismissal was improper; sanctions/fees reversed.

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, 74 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2002) (sets out the test for constitutional public expenditures and what constitutes a prohibited gratuity).
City of Cleburne v. Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co., 1 S.W. 342 (Tex. 1886) (historical context for the Gift Clauses; government spending for private benefit).
Davis v. City of Taylor, 67 S.W.2d 1033 (Tex. 1934) (defining what constitutes a public purpose for government expenditures).
City of Aransas Pass v. Keeling, 247 S.W. 818 (Tex. 1923) (recognizing that expenditures with incidental private benefit can still serve a public purpose).