Supreme Court of Texas

══════════

No. 22-0775

══════════

State of Texas,

Petitioner,

v.

San Antonio Independent School District

and Jaime Aquino, in His Official Capacity,

Respondents

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Review from the

Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas

═══════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

In September 2021, the State of Texas sued the San Antonio 

Independent School District in response to the District’s requirement 

that its employees take a Covid-19 vaccine by October 15, 2021. The 

State contended that the vaccine requirement violated gubernatorial 

executive order GA-39. The district court denied the State’s request for 

a temporary injunction, and the court of appeals affirmed. The State 

petitioned for review.

In June 2023, we held in Abbott v. Harris County that GA-38—a 

gubernatorial order prohibiting local mask requirements—was “a valid 
2

exercise of the Governor’s authority under the Disaster Act.” 672 S.W.3d 

1, 21 (Tex. 2023). On September 1, 2023, Senate Bill 29 went into effect. 

Act of May 28, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 336, codified as TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE §§ 81.B.001–.004. This statute, with exceptions not 

relevant here, provides that “a governmental entity,” including a school 

district, “may not implement, order, or otherwise impose a mandate 

requiring a person to be vaccinated against COVID-19.” See TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 81B.001(2), .003; TEX. GOV’T CODE

§ 418.004(10). Also in June 2023, both GA-38 and GA-39 expired. See 

Abbott, 672 S.W.3d at 9 n.23 (explaining why the expiration of GA-38 

did not render that appeal moot).

In light of these events, we asked the parties to advise the Court 

as to whether further proceedings remain necessary. The State 

contends that the appeal is moot because the State sought a temporary 

injunction to enforce GA-39, which has now lapsed, and because Senate 

Bill 29 now statutorily prohibits any vaccine mandate imposed by the 

ISD. The ISD does not contend that it retains authority to impose 

vaccine requirements in spite of Senate Bill 29. It nevertheless argues 

that a live controversy remains because the parties disagree about the 

scope of the Governor’s authority during future disasters.

We agree with the State that this appeal is moot. Neither the 

enforceability of the ISD’s vaccine mandate, which the parties agree is 

barred by Senate Bill 29, nor the enforceability of executive order GA-39, 

which has expired, remains a live controversy between the parties. The 

remaining controversy posited by the ISD—the parties’ disagreement 

about the Governor’s power in hypothetical future disasters—raises 
3

merely an “abstract question of law,” and any judicial opinion

addressing that disagreement would be impermissibly advisory. See 

Abbott v. Mexican Am. Legis. Caucus, Tex. House of Representatives, 647 

S.W.3d 681, 689 (Tex. 2022).

This interlocutory appeal should therefore be dismissed as moot 

and the judgment of the court of appeals vacated. See TEX. R. APP. P.

56.2; 60.2(e). The State further requests that we vacate the opinion of 

the court of appeals in addition to vacating its judgment. See Morath v. 

Lewis, 601 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. 2020). The ISD does not agree, but it offers 

no argument to the contrary. We agree with the State that the public 

interest is best served by vacatur of the court of appeals’ opinion, which 

conflicts in many respects with this Court’s opinion in Abbott v. Harris 

County, 672 S.W.3d 1, and which the State has been prevented from 

challenging on the merits due to mootness. Morath, 601 S.W.3d at 791. 

The petition for review is granted, the judgment and the opinion 

of the court of appeals are vacated, and the appeal is dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1; 56.2; 60.2(e).

OPINION DELIVERED: October 27, 2023