5.1 Texas Supreme Court
11 min read•august 20, 2024
The Texas Supreme Court is the highest civil court in the state, wielding significant power over legal interpretation and judicial administration. Composed of nine justices, it hears appeals, establishes procedural rules, and oversees the state's court system.
This court plays a crucial role in shaping Texas law through its decisions on civil matters. Its rulings impact everything from contract disputes to constitutional issues, making it a key player in the state's legal landscape.
Composition of the Texas Supreme Court
- The Texas Supreme Court is the highest court in the state for civil matters and consists of a and eight
- The court has the authority to interpret state laws, establish rules for civil procedure, and oversee the administration of the Texas judicial system
- Justices are elected to staggered six-year terms in partisan elections, with three or four seats up for election every two years
Number of justices
Top images from around the web for Number of justices
Samuel Alito - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
110909-A-FG822-00 | Texas Supreme Court Justice, Justice Pau… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Nine U.S. Supreme Justices Lined Up as Chief Justice Burge… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Samuel Alito - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
110909-A-FG822-00 | Texas Supreme Court Justice, Justice Pau… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Number of justices
Samuel Alito - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
110909-A-FG822-00 | Texas Supreme Court Justice, Justice Pau… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Nine U.S. Supreme Justices Lined Up as Chief Justice Burge… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Samuel Alito - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
110909-A-FG822-00 | Texas Supreme Court Justice, Justice Pau… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- The Texas Supreme Court is composed of nine justices total
- This includes one Chief Justice and eight associate justices
- The number of justices on the court is determined by the Texas Constitution (Article 5, Section 2)
- Having nine justices allows for a diverse range of legal perspectives and expertise on the court
Qualifications for justices
- Justices must be at least 35 years old and have been a practicing lawyer or judge for at least 10 years
- They must be citizens of the United States and Texas residents for at least two years prior to election
- Justices are required to have a license to practice law in Texas
- There are no specific educational requirements, but most justices have a law degree from an accredited law school
Selection process for justices
- Justices are elected to the Texas Supreme Court through statewide partisan elections
- Candidates must first win their party's nomination in a primary election before advancing to the general election
- In the general election, voters choose between the Republican and Democratic nominees for each open seat
- If a vacancy occurs between elections, the Governor of Texas can appoint a replacement to serve until the next general election
Terms of office
- Justices serve staggered six-year terms, with elections held every two years for either three or four seats
- There are no term limits for Texas Supreme Court justices
- Justices can serve multiple terms if re-elected by voters
- The staggered terms help maintain continuity and institutional knowledge on the court
Jurisdiction of the Texas Supreme Court
- The Texas Supreme Court has over civil matters, including contract disputes, property rights, and personal injury claims
- It serves as the final arbiter of state law in civil cases and has the power to review decisions made by lower state courts
- The court also has original jurisdiction in some specific matters, such as issuing or habeas corpus
Final appellate jurisdiction in civil cases
- The Texas Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in civil cases, meaning it can review decisions made by lower state courts
- This includes cases that have been appealed from the Texas Courts of Appeals, which are the intermediate appellate courts in Texas
- The court has the discretion to choose which cases it will hear on appeal, typically focusing on cases that involve significant legal issues or conflicts between lower courts
Original jurisdiction for specific matters
- In addition to its appellate jurisdiction, the Texas Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in some specific matters
- This includes the power to issue writs of mandamus, which order a public official or lower court to perform a specific duty required by law
- The court also has original jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus, which can be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention or imprisonment
Discretionary review of appeals
- The Texas Supreme Court has discretionary review over most of the cases it hears, meaning it can choose which appeals to consider
- The court receives thousands of each year but only grants review in a small percentage of cases
- In deciding whether to grant review, the court considers factors such as the importance of the legal issues involved, the potential impact of the case on Texas law, and whether there are conflicting opinions from lower courts
Powers and duties of the Texas Supreme Court
- As the highest civil court in Texas, the Supreme Court has a range of powers and responsibilities related to interpreting state law, establishing court procedures, and overseeing the state judicial system
- The court's decisions have a significant impact on the lives of Texans and shape the development of state law in various areas
- In addition to its judicial functions, the court also has administrative duties related to the operation of the Texas court system
Interpreting state laws and constitution
- One of the primary roles of the Texas Supreme Court is interpreting state statutes and the Texas Constitution
- The court has the authority to determine the meaning and application of state laws in the context of specific cases before it
- Its interpretations of the law are binding on lower state courts and set precedents for future cases
- The court also has the power to strike down state laws that it finds to be in violation of the Texas Constitution
Establishing rules for civil procedure
- The Texas Supreme Court has the authority to establish rules governing civil procedure in the state's courts
- These rules, known as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, outline the processes and procedures that must be followed in civil cases
- The court periodically reviews and updates these rules to ensure they are effective and efficient
- The rules cover various aspects of civil litigation, such as pleadings, discovery, trials, and appeals
Administrative oversight of Texas judicial system
- In addition to its judicial functions, the Texas Supreme Court has administrative responsibilities related to the state's court system
- The court oversees the operations of lower state courts and ensures they are functioning effectively and efficiently
- This includes setting policies and procedures for court administration, managing the state's judicial budget, and providing training and resources for judges and court staff
- The court also has the power to discipline judges for misconduct or incompetence through its State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Appointment powers for certain judicial positions
- The Texas Supreme Court has the authority to appoint individuals to certain judicial positions in the state
- This includes appointing members of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints against judges and can recommend disciplinary action
- The court also appoints members of the Board of Law Examiners, which is responsible for administering the Texas bar exam and overseeing the licensing of attorneys in the state
Notable Texas Supreme Court decisions
- Throughout its history, the Texas Supreme Court has issued numerous significant decisions that have shaped Texas law and impacted the lives of Texans
- These decisions have addressed a wide range of legal issues, from civil rights and constitutional questions to more specific matters of contract law or personal injury claims
- Some of the court's rulings have been controversial or politically charged, reflecting the complex legal and social issues facing the state
Significant cases impacting Texas law
- (1987): This case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of Getty Oil and resulted in a $10.5 billion judgment against Texaco, the largest civil judgment in U.S. history at the time
- (1989): In this case, the court ruled that Texas's system of school financing violated the state constitution's requirement for an "efficient" system of public education, leading to significant reforms in school funding
- (1989): Although later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Texas Supreme Court initially upheld the constitutionality of a state law banning flag desecration, sparking a national debate over free speech rights
Landmark rulings on constitutional issues
- (1992): The court held that the Texas Constitution provides broader free speech protections than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, setting a significant for state constitutional law
- (2020): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the court upheld Governor Greg Abbott's executive order restricting the release of some jail inmates due to public health concerns, addressing the balance between public safety and individual rights
- (2016): The court upheld the constitutionality of Texas's school finance system, finding that it met the requirements of the state constitution despite ongoing challenges related to funding equity
Controversial or high-profile decisions
- (1970): Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision, the Texas Supreme Court had upheld the state's restrictive abortion laws, which prohibited abortions except in cases of life-threatening medical emergencies
- (2020): The court ruled that the State Bar of Texas could not require attorneys to join or pay dues to the organization, a decision with significant implications for the regulation of the legal profession in the state
- (1993): The court upheld the constitutionality of a state law requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions, a decision that sparked controversy and debate over reproductive rights in Texas
Role in the Texas court system
- The Texas Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the state's court system as the highest court for civil matters and the final arbiter of state law in civil cases
- Its decisions are binding on lower state courts and shape the development of Texas law in various areas
- The court also has administrative responsibilities related to the operation and oversight of the state's judicial system
Highest court for civil matters
- As the highest court for civil matters in Texas, the Supreme Court has the final say on questions of state law in civil cases
- This includes cases involving contract disputes, property rights, personal injury claims, and other non-criminal legal matters
- The court's decisions in these cases set precedents that lower courts must follow, ensuring consistency and uniformity in the application of state law
Relationship with Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
- While the Texas Supreme Court is the highest court for civil matters, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court for criminal cases
- The two courts have separate jurisdictions and do not typically review each other's decisions
- However, there are some cases that may involve both civil and criminal elements, requiring coordination between the two courts
- In rare instances, the courts may issue conflicting opinions on matters of state constitutional law, which can create legal uncertainty until the issue is resolved
Interaction with lower state courts
- The Texas Supreme Court interacts with lower state courts in several ways, both through its judicial decisions and its administrative oversight
- Lower courts, such as the Texas Courts of Appeals and trial courts, are bound by the Supreme Court's interpretations of state law and must apply its precedents in their own cases
- The Supreme Court can review decisions made by lower courts through its appellate jurisdiction, either affirming or overturning their rulings
- Additionally, the Supreme Court has administrative authority over lower courts, setting policies and procedures for court operations and ensuring the effective functioning of the state's judicial system
Current composition of the Texas Supreme Court
- As of 2023, the Texas Supreme Court consists of nine justices, including a Chief Justice and eight associate justices
- The current court is composed of justices with diverse backgrounds and experiences, reflecting the varied legal and political landscape of Texas
- The court's composition can have a significant impact on its decisions and the direction of state law
Sitting justices and their backgrounds
- Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht: Appointed in 2013, Chief Justice Hecht is the longest-serving member of the court and has been a justice since 1988. He is known for his conservative legal views and has played a key role in shaping Texas's judicial system
- Justice Debra H. Lehrmann: Elected in 2010, Justice Lehrmann previously served as a trial court judge and has been recognized for her work on issues related to family law and child welfare
- Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd: Appointed in 2012, Justice Boyd has a background in civil litigation and has been involved in efforts to improve access to justice and legal services for low-income Texans
- Other justices include Jimmy Blacklock, John P. Devine, Brett Busby, Jane Bland, Rebeca Huddle, and Evan Young, each bringing their own unique perspectives and experiences to the court
Chief Justice and administrative roles
- As Chief Justice, Nathan L. Hecht has additional administrative responsibilities beyond his judicial duties
- The Chief Justice oversees the operation of the Texas judicial system, sets policies and procedures for court administration, and serves as a spokesperson for the court
- The Chief Justice also chairs the Texas Judicial Council, which recommends improvements to the state's courts and legal system
- In addition, the Chief Justice appoints members to various committees and boards related to the judiciary, such as the State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Demographic and ideological balance of the court
- The current Texas Supreme Court is composed entirely of Republican justices, reflecting the state's conservative political leanings
- However, the justices bring a range of legal backgrounds and perspectives to their work, with some known for their more moderate or pragmatic approaches
- In terms of demographics, the court has become more diverse in recent years, with three women and one Hispanic justice currently serving
- Despite this progress, there is ongoing debate about the need for greater diversity and representation on the court to better reflect the state's population
Texas Supreme Court vs U.S. Supreme Court
- While both the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are the highest courts in their respective jurisdictions, there are significant differences in their roles, powers, and jurisdiction
- Understanding these differences is important for navigating the complex interplay between state and federal law and the impact of court decisions on individuals and society
Differences in jurisdiction and scope
- The Texas Supreme Court has jurisdiction over civil matters arising under state law, while the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over federal law and constitutional issues
- The U.S. Supreme Court can review decisions made by state courts, including the Texas Supreme Court, but only if they involve federal law or constitutional questions
- The Texas Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Texas state law, while the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on federal law and the U.S. Constitution
Similarities in judicial review and precedent
- Both the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have the power of , meaning they can review laws and government actions to determine their constitutionality
- The courts also rely on the principle of stare decisis, which means that their decisions set precedents that lower courts must follow in similar cases
- This ensures consistency and predictability in the application of law and helps to maintain the stability of the legal system
Relationship between state and federal supreme courts
- The relationship between the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court is governed by the principle of federalism, which divides power between the state and federal governments
- In cases involving only state law, the Texas Supreme Court has the final say, and its decisions cannot be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court
- However, if a case involves federal law or constitutional issues, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review and potentially overturn decisions made by the Texas Supreme Court
- This complex interplay between state and federal courts helps to ensure the protection of individual rights and the consistent application of law across the country
Key Terms to Review (27)
Appeals process: The appeals process is a legal procedure through which a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court. This process allows parties dissatisfied with a ruling to seek a reversal or modification of the decision based on legal errors or procedural issues that may have occurred during the original trial.
Article V of the Texas Constitution: Article V of the Texas Constitution outlines the judicial branch of the state government, detailing the structure, powers, and functions of the courts in Texas. It establishes the Texas Supreme Court as the highest court in the state, responsible for civil cases and providing oversight of lower courts. This article is essential for understanding how justice is administered in Texas and the roles of various judicial entities within the state.
Associate justices: Associate justices are judges who serve on a court, typically alongside a chief justice, and participate in making decisions on legal cases. In the context of the judicial system, these justices have equal voting power as their chief counterpart, contributing to the interpretation of laws and the constitution. Their role is essential in ensuring a balanced and fair adjudication process within the higher courts.
Checks and balances: Checks and balances is a system that ensures that no single branch of government becomes too powerful by providing each branch the means to limit the powers of the others. This system promotes accountability and prevents abuses of power, making it a fundamental principle in the organization of government. By distributing authority among different branches, it allows for cooperation and oversight, which is essential in maintaining a balanced governmental structure.
Chief justice: The chief justice is the head of the judicial branch in a state or federal court system, responsible for presiding over court proceedings and ensuring the proper administration of justice. In Texas, the chief justice leads the Texas Supreme Court, which handles civil cases, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which deals with criminal cases, making this role crucial for interpreting state laws and upholding constitutional rights.
Code of judicial conduct: The code of judicial conduct is a set of ethical guidelines designed to ensure the integrity, impartiality, and independence of judges. It serves as a framework for judges' behavior, outlining expectations for their conduct both on and off the bench. This code is crucial in maintaining public confidence in the judicial system, particularly in courts like the Texas Supreme Court, where decisions can have widespread implications.
Creation of the Court in 1836: The creation of the court in 1836 refers to the establishment of the judicial system in the Republic of Texas following its declaration of independence from Mexico. This marked a pivotal moment in Texas governance as it laid the groundwork for a structured legal system, providing a means for conflict resolution and upholding the rule of law in the newly formed republic.
Davenport v. Garcia: Davenport v. Garcia is a significant Texas Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of due process rights in the context of educational funding and resource allocation. The ruling emphasized that adequate funding for public education is a fundamental right, reflecting the state's constitutional obligation to provide quality education for all students. This case has implications for how Texas courts interpret and enforce due process rights related to education.
Due Process: Due process is a legal principle that ensures fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement. It protects individuals from arbitrary decisions by the government and mandates that laws and legal proceedings must be followed fairly and consistently. This concept is vital for safeguarding personal rights in various legal contexts, including courts and legislation.
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby: Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby was a landmark case decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 1993 that addressed the issue of public school finance in Texas, specifically regarding the inequities created by the state's funding system. The court ruled that the current system violated the Texas Constitution's requirement for an efficient public education, which led to significant reforms in how schools were funded across the state.
In re Abbott: In re Abbott is a significant Texas Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of constitutional protections for voters in the context of redistricting. The case highlighted the balance between state authority and federal constitutional requirements, particularly focusing on how district maps are drawn and the impact on voter representation. This case serves as a crucial example of the judiciary's role in overseeing electoral processes and ensuring that voting rights are upheld within Texas.
In re State Bar of Texas: In re State Bar of Texas is a significant legal case concerning the authority and governance of the State Bar of Texas, addressing issues related to the regulation of the legal profession and the responsibilities of lawyers. This case is pivotal as it highlights the balance between maintaining ethical standards in the legal community and protecting the rights of attorneys against potential overreach by regulatory bodies.
In re State of Texas: In re State of Texas refers to a legal case or action taken by the State of Texas, often appearing in the context of the Texas Supreme Court's jurisdiction. This term typically signifies that the state is a party in a legal matter, addressing constitutional, statutory, or administrative issues that affect its governance and operations.
Judicial Recusal: Judicial recusal is the process by which a judge removes themselves from a case due to potential conflicts of interest or bias. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring that parties involved receive a fair trial. The decision to recuse can be voluntary or mandated by law, aiming to protect the impartiality of judicial proceedings.
Judicial review: Judicial review is the power of courts to assess whether a law, policy, or executive action is in accordance with the Constitution. This process ensures that no law or government action violates constitutional principles and serves as a vital mechanism for maintaining the balance of power within government. It connects deeply to systems of checks and balances, the roles of different courts, and the selection process of judges, as well as how state laws interact with federal authority.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court to hear and decide cases. This authority can be defined by geographical boundaries, the type of case, or the amount in controversy. Understanding jurisdiction is crucial because it determines which court has the power to adjudicate a dispute and enforce laws, ensuring that legal matters are addressed in the appropriate venue.
Morath v. Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition: Morath v. Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition is a significant legal case that involved a challenge to the way public school funding is allocated in Texas. The case scrutinized the state's school finance system and whether it provided equitable access to educational resources for all students, particularly focusing on issues of fairness for low-income students and those in underfunded districts.
Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.: Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc. is a landmark case decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 1987 that involved a dispute over a breach of contract and interference with business relations. The case centered around Pennzoil's claim against Texaco for damages after Texaco induced Getty Oil to breach an agreement to sell its assets to Pennzoil, resulting in a significant jury award and the reaffirmation of Texas's commitment to enforcing contractual obligations.
Perez v. Turner: Perez v. Turner is a landmark case decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 2014 that addressed the issue of whether a public school district can be held liable for the actions of its employees under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The ruling highlighted important aspects of liability, government accountability, and the legal responsibilities of educational institutions in Texas.
Petitions for review: Petitions for review are formal requests submitted to a higher court, specifically the Texas Supreme Court, to reconsider a lower court's decision. These petitions play a crucial role in the appellate process, allowing parties dissatisfied with a ruling to seek further judicial review and potentially alter the outcome of their case. The Texas Supreme Court has discretion over which petitions it accepts, meaning not all petitions are granted a hearing.
Precedent: Precedent refers to a legal principle or rule established in previous court decisions that guides judges in making future rulings on similar cases. This concept is crucial in maintaining consistency and predictability in the law, as it allows courts to rely on established interpretations and applications of legal standards. In the context of the judicial system, adherence to precedent helps ensure that similar cases are treated alike, reinforcing the rule of law.
Riley v. State: Riley v. State is a landmark case decided by the Texas Supreme Court, which established important precedents regarding search and seizure laws, particularly focusing on digital privacy rights. The case involved the legality of warrantless searches of cell phones by law enforcement during arrests, emphasizing the need for search warrants to protect individuals' privacy in the digital age.
Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1973 that established a woman's legal right to have an abortion under the right to privacy. This case marked a significant turning point in the legal landscape regarding reproductive rights and continues to shape the discussion around abortion laws and policies, influencing various aspects of governance, state powers, and judicial decisions.
Separation of Powers: Separation of powers is a governance model that divides the responsibilities and powers of government into distinct branches, typically the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This framework is designed to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power and to promote a system of checks and balances among the branches to ensure accountability and protect individual rights.
Texas v. Johnson: Texas v. Johnson was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1989 that upheld the right to burn the American flag as a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. This decision emphasized the importance of freedom of speech, even when the expression is controversial or offensive, and highlighted the ongoing debate about individual rights and state laws within the framework of American governance.
Women's suffrage cases: Women's suffrage cases refer to the legal battles and court decisions surrounding the right of women to vote in the United States, particularly significant during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These cases often highlighted the legal and societal barriers women faced and aimed to secure voting rights through judicial means, reflecting broader movements for gender equality and social reform.
Writs of mandamus: A writ of mandamus is a court order directing a public official or government entity to perform a duty that is required by law. This legal instrument is significant as it serves as a means for individuals or groups to compel government officials to fulfill their responsibilities when they fail to do so, ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law.