TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 30, 2022

NO. 03-21-00294-CV

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their 

Participating Members; Windstream Services, LLC; Texas Windstream, LLC (d/b/a 

Windstream Communications); Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/b/a 

Windstream Communications); Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/b/a 

Windstream Communications Southwest); Windstream Sugar Land LLC; Central 

Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. (d/b/a CenturyLink); CenturyTel of Lake Dallas, Inc. 

(d/b/a CenturyLink); CenturyTel of Port Aransas, Inc. (d/b/a CenturyLink); CenturyTel of 

San Marcos, Inc. (d/b/a CenturyLink); and United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. 

(d/b/a CenturyLink), Appellants 

v. 

Public Utility Commission of Texas; Peter Lake, Chairman; Will McAdams, 

Commissioner; Lori Cobos, Commissioner; And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in 

His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Appellees 

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFRIMED IN PART, REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART, 

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 7, 2021. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the 

court’s judgment. The Court reverses the trial court’s judgment in part and renders judgment as 

the trial court should have as follows: 
(1) Pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA),

1 the Court declares that 

the Commissioners are acting ultra vires by (i) not fully funding TUSF, 

(ii) implementing a hierarchy of funding among TUSF programs and enforcing the 

December 17, 2020 Contract Amendment, and (iii) failing to fully pay all 

disbursements required by PURA and the Commission’s existing TUSF orders and

commitments.

(2) Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)2—particularly Tex. Gov’t 

Code § 2001.038(a)—the Court declares:

(a) the Commission’s June 2020 decision to not fully fund TUSF and to initiate 

the creation of a hierarchy of funding among TUSF programs is void and

(b) the December 2020 Contract Amendment is void. 

(3) The Court permanently enjoins the following:

(a) the Commissioners from not fully funding TUSF as required by statute and 

from failing to fully pay all disbursements required by PURA and the 

Commission’s existing TUSF orders and commitments, and

(b) the Commission and the Commissioners from enforcing the December 2020 

Contract Amendment.

Further, the Court reverses the dismissal of the Appellants’ request for a writ of mandamus based 

on their ultra vires claims. On remand, the trial court shall issue a writ of mandamus ordering

the Commissioners to take immediate action to fulfill their duties imposed by law to fully fund 

all TUSF programs and to make all disbursements required by PURA and the Commission’s

existing TUSF orders and commitments.

3 The Court also reverses the dismissal of the

Appellants’ regulatory-takings claim and renders judgment granting their summary-judgment as 

to this claim. The Court remands to the trial court the Appellants’ regulatory-takings claim for a 

1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 37.001-37.011. 2 Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2001.001-.903. 3 See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 (establishing power of courts of appeals to issue writs of 

mandamus against certain judges); id. § 24.011 (establishing district courts’ power to grant writs

of mandamus). 
determination of the actual damages and the Appellants’ claim for attorneys’ fees under 

the UDJA. 

The Court affirms the trial court’s dismissal of the Rural Providers’ request for 

mandamus relief in connection with their APA-rulemaking claim.

The appellees shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in

the court below.