Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as DFPS Commissioner Texas Health and Human Services Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as HHSC Executive Commissioner Corrections Corporation of America And the GEO Group, Inc. v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc. Gloria Valenzuela E.G.S., for Herself and as Next Friend for A.E.S.G. F.D.G., for Herself and as Next Friend for N.R.C.D. Y.E.M.A., for Herself and as Next Friend for A.S.A., 665 S.W.3d 135

Background:

Plaintiffs (former detainees, a day-care operator, and an advocacy org) challenged a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services rule that designated certain immigration family detention centers ("family residential centers" or FRCs) as general residential operations (GROs) and exempted them from the Minimum Standards barring unrelated adults from sharing bedrooms with children.
Dilley and Karnes are the two Texas centers at issue; plaintiffs alleged the rule led to unrelated adults sharing bedrooms with children, at least one sexual assault, and longer detention periods for children.
The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), declaring the FRC Rule invalid as contravening Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 42.002(4) and the chapter’s objectives, and entered injunctive relief (including orders preserving the status quo pending appeal).
This Court initially reversed on standing; the Texas Supreme Court reversed that ruling and remanded for consideration of other jurisdictional issues and the merits.
On remand this Court held the detainees’ claims were not moot under the public‑interest exception, affirmed that the Department lacked statutory authority to license/regulate FRCs as GROs (thus invalidating the FRC Rule), rejected GEO’s estoppel argument, but vacated the portion of the injunction ordering the Department to continue investigations/oversight during appeal.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of detainees' claims	Detainees released on parole/bond that can be revoked; not moot	Detainees no longer residents of Dilley/Karnes; controversy moot	Not moot: public‑interest exception applies (case addresses issues of considerable public importance and evades review)
"Capable of repetition yet evading review" exception	Short average detention (~11 days) and likelihood future detainees will face same conditions	No evidence these specific plaintiffs will be detained again	First prong met (short duration); second prong not satisfied for these plaintiffs specifically
Agency authority to classify/licence FRCs as GROs	Chapter 42 regulates child‑care facilities that care for children in absence of parents; FRCs where parents reside are shelters, not GROs	GRO definition covers 24‑hour care and thus Dilley/Karnes fall within Chapter 42	Department lacks statutory authority to license/regulate Dilley and Karnes as GROs; FRC Rule invalid under APA
Judicial estoppel (GEO) based on Flores consent decree	Plaintiffs benefited from decree requiring state‑licensed placement; cannot now attack licensing	Consent decree presumes lawful state licensing; challenging an unauthorized rule is not inconsistent	No estoppel; plaintiffs may pursue APA challenge
Injunctive relief ordering DFPS/HHSC oversight during appeal	Needed to preserve status quo and prevent irreparable harm	Order exceeds court’s merits holding and was not properly pleaded	Portion of Amended Final Judgment ordering the Department to continue investigations/oversight during appeal vacated; remainder of judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Grassroots Leadership, Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 646 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. 2022) (Texas Supreme Court reversing this Court on standing and remanding)
Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (mootness requires a live controversy at all stages)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) ("capable of repetition yet evading review" doctrine limited to exceptional situations)
Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016) (federal litigation requiring state‑licensed placement for detained minors under Flores consent decree)
Public Util. Comm’n v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 53 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2001) (agencies have only statutory powers granted by legislature)
TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Commission on State Emergency Commc’ns, 397 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. 2013) (no deference to agency statutory construction when statute is unambiguous)
Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (requirements for the capable‑of‑repetition exception)