Summary
The Texas Supreme Court considered whether sovereign immunity barred claims by two open-enrollment charter schools challenging the Commissioner's mandatory revocation of their charters. The Court held that the charter schools lacked a vested property interest in their charters and that their constitutional and ultra vires claims could not proceed, affirming the court of appeals' dismissal.
Holdings
- An open-enrollment charter is in the nature of a license or permit to operate a charter school subject to applicable laws and regulations; it does not create a vested private-property right in the charter holder or in continued participation in public education.
- The schools' constitutional claims failed because a charter school has no vested property right or contractual right against the State in the continued existence or terms of its charter.
- The Commissioner's interpretation and application of the charter-revocation provisions were within his statutory authority and did not constitute ultra vires conduct.
- The Commissioner's rule limiting the informal financial-accountability-rating appeal process was not ultra vires on the record presented.
- Sovereign immunity barred the schools' claims because the statutes precluded judicial review and the schools failed to establish a constitutional or ultra vires basis for suit.
Questions Presented
- Whether an open-enrollment charter creates a vested property right protected by the Texas Constitution's due-course-of-law provision or the federal Due Process Clause.
- Whether the charter schools could maintain constitutional impairment-of-contract and retroactivity claims against the State based on the revocation of their charters.
- Whether the Commissioner's interpretation and application of Texas Education Code section 12.115(c)-(c-1) constituted ultra vires conduct despite statutory provisions making the administrative decision final and unappealable.
- Whether the Commissioner's administrative rule limiting challenges to financial accountability ratings exceeded the authority granted by Texas Education Code section 39.151.
- Whether sovereign immunity barred the schools' district-court proceedings.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (38)
- Tex. Educ. Agency v. Am. YouthWorks, Inc., 496 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016)(followed)
- In re Office of the Attorney Gen., 456 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam)(followed)
- Stone v. Tex. Liquor Control Bd., 417 S.W.2d 385, 385-86 (Tex. 1967)(followed)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009)(followed)
- Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. at Houston v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 929 (Tex. 1995)(followed)
- Patel v. Tex. Dep't of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69, 86 (Tex. 2015)(followed)
- Klumb v. Hous. Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 458 S.W.3d 1, 10-11, 15 (Tex. 2015)(followed)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)(followed)
- City of Dallas v. Trammell, 129 Tex. 150, 101 S.W.2d 1009, 1014 (1937)(followed)
- Grounds v. Tolar Indep. Sch. Dist., 856 S.W.2d 417, 418-20 (Tex. 1993)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 38.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…