Cecile Erwin, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Michelle Hillstrom, in Her Official Capacity as the Region 3 Director for Community Care Services Eligibility for Health and Human Services Commission v. Dallas County, Texas; And Marian Brown, in Her Official Capacity as Dallas County Sheriff

Fifteenth Court of Appeals · September 2, 2025 · No. 15-24-00013-CV

Summary

This memorandum opinion from the Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals resolves a dispute over whether Dallas County can recover costs for detaining criminal defendants awaiting transfer to state mental health facilities due to an HHSC waitlist. The court analyzes standing, ultra vires claims under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 46.04, and multiple constitutional challenges regarding taxation, debt, separation of powers, and takings. Concluding that the statute governs transport conditions rather than admission deadlines and that sovereign immunity bars the claims, the court reverses the trial court and dismisses the suit for want of jurisdiction.

Court
Fifteenth Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
September 2, 2025
Docket number
15-24-00013-CV
Procedural posture
Appeal from the 353rd District Court, Travis County, Texas (Cause No. D-1-GN-23-001610); trial court denied HHSC's plea to the jurisdiction.
Standard of review
De novo as a question of law for a jurisdictional plea.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Cecile Erwin, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Michelle Hillstrom, in Her Official Capacity as the Region 3 Director for Community Care Services Eligibility for Health and Human Services Commission v. Dallas County, Texas; Marian Brown, in Her Official Capacity as Dallas County Sheriff
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

statutory interpretationstandingtakings clauseseparation of powersplain meaning rulenoscitur a sociisdue process

Practice areas

administrative lawconstitutional lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in denying HHSC's plea to the jurisdiction concerning standing and jurisdictional defects.
  2. Whether HHSC's waitlist policy is ultra vires under Texas law.
  3. Whether the County's constitutional claims (ad valorem tax, state debt, appropriation, separation of powers, takings) are valid.

Holdings

  1. The court granted the plea to the jurisdiction as to Hillstrom, finding no standing and dismissing the claims against her.
  2. The waitlist is not ultra vires; Article 46.04 §2(1) governs conditions of transport, not the timing of acceptance of forensic commitments.
  3. The County has not alleged a valid claim under any of the asserted constitutional provisions; each claim is dismissed.

Key quotations

We reverse the trial court’s order and render judgment dismissing the County’s suit for want of jurisdiction with prejudice.

Factual background

The County reported that 364 forensic-commitment patients were confined in its jail awaiting placement in state hospitals, with 311 waiting more than 45 days and some over two years, costing the County approximately $7.5 million. HHSC manages ten facilities with roughly 2,400 forensic-commitment beds, but a long waitlist exists.

Procedural history

The County sued HHSC and Hillstrom seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief over a waitlist for forensic-commitment patients. HHSC and Hillstrom filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing lack of standing and insufficient pleadings. The trial court denied the plea. Both parties appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…