Terry Porter and Jennifer Porter v. Montgomery County, Texas, 09-15-00459-CV

In 2005 Montgomery County Commissioners Court adopted an order prohibiting discharge of firearms on subdivision lots of ten acres or smaller in unincorporated areas and made violations misdemeanors.
In 2008 Terry and Jennifer Porter bought four contiguous lots totaling ~21.883 acres in an unincorporated subdivision, fenced them, and opened a shooting range.
County Attorney informed the Porters in 2012 that discharging firearms on their lots was prohibited and punishable by fine; Porters later sought cancellation of their lots’ subdivision status but the Commissioners Court denied the request.
In 2015 the Porters sued Montgomery County for a declaratory judgment that the firearms order did not apply to their contiguous lots (arguing the acreage should be considered collectively), but did not challenge the order’s validity.
Montgomery County filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing sovereign immunity barred the suit because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not waive immunity when the plaintiff only seeks an interpretation of an ordinance and does not challenge its validity.
The trial court denied the County’s plea, denied Porters’ summary judgment, granted County summary judgment; on appeal the court reversed, holding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the Porters’ case with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Declaratory Judgments Act waives county sovereign immunity so the court can interpret a county order absent a challenge to the order’s validity	Porter: The Act permits courts to construe ordinances and thus waives immunity for declaratory relief interpreting the order	County: The Act does not waive immunity when plaintiff seeks only interpretation and does not attack an ordinance’s validity	Held: No waiver — the Act does not waive immunity for claims that only seek interpretation of a valid ordinance; jurisdiction lacking
Whether Porters should be allowed to amend to assert invalidity of the order	Porter: If pleadings are deficient, they should be allowed to replead and challenge validity	County: Porters were on notice and cannot plausibly show the order is invalid given statutory authority for counties to regulate firearms	Held: Denied — amendment would not cure jurisdictional defect because statute authorizes the regulation; dismissal with prejudice appropriate

Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (jurisdictional requirement before reaching merits)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing plea to the jurisdiction)
Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (de novo review of jurisdictional rulings)
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (nature and effect of dilatory pleas)
Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (sovereign immunity bars suits against governmental entities absent waiver)
County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (limits on weighing merits in jurisdictional review)
Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) (Declaratory Judgments Act waives immunity only for validity challenges)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (agencies remain immune except for suits challenging validity of statutes/ordinances)
City of McKinney v. Hank’s Rest. Grp., L.P., 412 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive immunity for mere statutory interpretation)
Texas Education Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994) (addressed declaratory relief scope; later clarified by Sefzik)