Honors Acad., Inc. v. Tex. Educ. Agency

555 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. 2018) · Supreme Court of Texas · April 27, 2018

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The Commissioner's interpretation and application of the charter-revocation provisions were within his statutory authority and did not constitute ultra vires conduct.
  4. The Commissioner's rule limiting the informal financial-accountability-rating appeal process was not ultra vires on the record presented.
  5. 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

  1. 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.
  2. Whether the charter schools could maintain constitutional impairment-of-contract and retroactivity claims against the State based on the revocation of their charters.
  3. 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.
  4. Whether the Commissioner's administrative rule limiting challenges to financial accountability ratings exceeded the authority granted by Texas Education Code section 39.151.
  5. 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 PDF
Loading document…