518 S.W.3d 905
Tex.2017Background
- University of the Incarnate Word (UIW) is a private university that operates a state-authorized campus police department; a UIW officer fatally shot student Cameron Redus after a traffic stop.
- Redus’s parents sued UIW and the officer; UIW raised governmental immunity in a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied.
- UIW filed an interlocutory appeal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8), which permits interlocutory appeals from a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction.
- The court of appeals held UIW was not a “governmental unit” and dismissed the appeal; UIW sought review by the Texas Supreme Court.
- The legal question centers on whether UIW qualifies as a “governmental unit” under the Tort Claims Act definition (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.001(3)(D))—i.e., whether it is an “institution, agency, or organ of government” whose status/authority derives from state law.
- UIW argues its police function is governmental because the Legislature authorizes private universities to commission peace officers with the same powers, duties, and regulatory requirements as other peace officers; the Reduses counter that UIW remains a private institution and lacks the statutory indicia of government-unit status present in other cases.
Issues
| Issue | Reduses' Argument | UIW's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIW is a “governmental unit” for purposes of interlocutory appeal under § 51.014(a)(8) | UIW is a private institution; no statute makes UIW an institution/organ of government, and statutory authorization to commission officers does not convert UIW into government | UIW is a governmental unit as to its policing function because Legislature authorized private universities to create police departments and their officers have state-law powers, privileges, and regulatory status | UIW is a governmental unit for purposes of law enforcement, so it may pursue the interlocutory appeal |
| Whether the Tort Claims Act’s subpart (D) requires entity-wide governmental status or function-specific status | Subpart (D) requires being an institution/agency/organ of government generally, not just for one function | Subpart (D) can be satisfied functionally where Legislature grants governmental authority (e.g., policing) and integrates that function into state systems | Court accepts function-specific governmental-unit status for UIW’s law-enforcement activities |
| Whether indicators from LTTS Charter Sch. control UIW’s status | LTTS factors (public funding, inclusion in public system, express statutory immunity) are largely absent here, so UIW is not governmental | Those factors are not exhaustive; statutory authorization and equivalence of powers/controls for police officers are strong indicators of governmental status for policing | Court finds policing indicators sufficient despite absence of some LTTS factors |
| Whether this decision decides UIW’s sovereign immunity from suit | Reduses: denial of governmental-unit status would prevent interlocutory appeal and affect immunity analysis | UIW: seeks interlocutory review to press immunity claim later | Court: decision only addresses appellate jurisdiction (governmental-unit status under Tort Claims Act); immunity remains undecided and to be analyzed under sovereign-immunity principles |
Key Cases Cited
- LTTS Charter Sch., Inc. v. C2 Constr., Inc., 342 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2011) (private charter school held governmental unit based on statutory integration into public-education system)
- Klein v. Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2010) (cases recognizing private entities as governmental units where statute supports that status)
- Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2016) (distinguishing Tort Claims Act governmental-unit analysis from sovereign-immunity analysis)
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dall., 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (discussing courts’ role in defining sovereign immunity boundaries)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. of Dall. v. Margulis, 11 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. 2000) (court retains jurisdiction to determine whether a court of appeals properly exercised jurisdiction)