San Antonio Family Association, Texas Right to Life, Texas Leadership Coalition, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Bexar County Republican Party, Allied Women's Center of San Antonio, San Antonio Coalition for Life, Texas Eagle Forum, Unite San Antonio, Patrick Von Dohlen, Michael R. Knuffke, Daniel J. Petri, K. Jason Khattar, Susan Bayne, Aileen Boone, Kevin Choate, Marilyn Choate, Elizabeth Anne Comeaux, Paul Julienne Comeaux, Sonia Cantoral, Eli Danze, Alice Davis, Dennis Dewine, Roberth Gonzalez v. the City of San Antonio, Ron Nirenberg, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio, 04-24-00300-CV

Appellants, including the San Antonio Family Association and others, challenged the City of San Antonio's creation and funding of a "Reproductive Justice Fund" using taxpayer money.
The Fund, initiated by the City Council with an initial $500,000 allocation and later an additional $100,000, was created to support metro health, including potentially providing transportation for abortion care, which appellants claim is illegal.
Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent alleged illegal spending of taxpayer funds by the city for abortion-related activities.
The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, holding the claims were not ripe and appellants lacked standing.
This opinion is a dissent, arguing that the appellants do have standing as taxpayers and their claims are ripe for judicial review due to a real threat of harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held (Dissent)
Ripeness of claims	Harm is likely, not speculative, due to planned city fund use for abortion-related purposes	No actual expenditure; no injury until funds spent	Claims are ripe because injury is imminent
Taxpayer standing	Taxpayers can sue to enjoin proposed illegal expenditures, even without distinct injury	No standing until actual illegal expenditure occurs	Taxpayer standing established due to imminent risk
Need for concrete injury for injunctive relief	Substantial risk of future harm is enough for standing/injunction	No concrete injury yet, thus no standing	Future substantial risk suffices for injunctive relief
Declaratory judgment ripeness	UDJA allows relief before harm occurs; controversy is live	No controversy until concrete allocation occurs	Declaratory judgment action is appropriate

Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Lynch, 595 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2020) (ripeness focuses on likelihood, not certainty, of injury)
Etan Indus., Inc. v. Lehmann, 359 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2011) (declaratory judgment appropriate for preventative relief)
Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (taxpayer may challenge proposed illegal expenditures)
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (taxpayer standing to stop governmental illegal expenditures)