Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director// Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M. v. Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M.// Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director, 03-14-00774-CV

Background

Plaintiff Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M., ran a no-kill animal shelter (San Antonio Pets Alive) and provided medical care to shelter-owned animals relying on the Veterinary Licensing Act’s "owner exemption."
The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners charged Jefferson for alleged wrongdoing involving a shelter-owned dog.
Jefferson sued in Travis County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the Board acted ultra vires and that its rules conflicted with the owner exemption (Tex. Occ. Code § 801.004(1)).
The trial court invalidated two Board rules (22 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 573.72 and 573.80(2)) as inconsistent with the owner exemption, but dismissed certain claims for lack of jurisdiction and remanded prosecution to the administrative process.
An administrative law judge later found Jefferson’s acts fell within the owner exemption.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of “owner exemption” under Tex. Occ. Code § 801.004(1)	The exemption is absolute: owners and designated caretakers may perform veterinary acts “in any manner” without Board regulation.	Board contends certain situations fall within its regulatory authority and that its rules are lawful limits on exemptions.	Trial court invalidated two Board rules as contrary to the owner exemption but left open Board enforcement in some respects; amici argue the exemption must be treated as absolute and court’s residual language threatens it.
Whether Jefferson must exhaust administrative remedies before a judicial ultra vires challenge	Jefferson: exhaustion is not required when an agency acts beyond statutorily conferred authority (ultra vires).	Board: (implicit) agency process should be used to resolve enforcement actions first.	Trial court required exhaustion in part (dismissing some declaratory claims); amici contend this was error because exhaustion does not apply to ultra vires claims.
Whether the trial court’s ruling improperly grants the Board discretion to override the owner exemption	Jefferson: the Legislature removed owners from regulation “in any manner,” so the Board has no discretion to regulate owners.	Board: its rules regulate protectable situations within statutory authority.	Amicus argues the trial court’s language allowing the Board to "ensure compliance" while giving "due regard" undermines the statutory absolute exemption and improperly expands Board power.
Effect of ruling on agricultural stakeholders and property rights	Jefferson/amici: narrowing or allowing discretionary exceptions to the owner exemption threatens longstanding agricultural practices and private property rights.	Board: regulation targets particular contexts (e.g., shelter practices) and does not eviscerate owner exemption generally.	Trial court struck specific rules but—according to amici—left precedent that creates uncertainty for owners and producers; amici urge reversal of rulings that undermine exemption.

Key Cases Cited

City of Round Rock v. Whiteaker, 241 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (agency may exercise only statutory powers; courts and agencies cannot expand them)
Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (principle that agencies and courts must adhere to legislative grants of authority)
Tex. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Tex. Med. Ass’n, 375 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (agency interpretations receive no deference when statute is unambiguous)
Westheimer Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Brockette, 567 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. 1978) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when challenging ultra vires agency action)
Pistole v. State, 150 S.W. 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912) (courts must respect legislative policy choices and not substitute their judgment for the Legislature)
City of Sherman v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 643 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. 1983) (agencies may attempt to expand authority absent legislative restraint; judicial review protects statutory boundaries)
Tara Partners, Ltd. v. City of S. Hous., 282 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (agencies and municipalities may expand reach absent checks; cautionary precedent on agency overreach)