Opinion ID: 2834548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: What About Finality?

Text: If finality is the goal, the mandate is not the answer. First of all, mandates issue 10 days after our judgment is final; [48] any argument to postpone the effective date until finality does not justify postponing it 10 days more. Moreover, mandates can be recalled; [49] so while judgments and opinions can change, mandates can too. The problem is that it is hard to say when our decisions are final. The rules of procedure place no explicit limit on our plenary power, as they do for the courts of appeals. [50] And as we have noted several times before, judgments become “final” for different purposes at different times. [51] Thus, for the purpose of review by the United States Supreme Court, a judgment from this Court is “final” immediately, not when the mandate issues. [52] For purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel , a judgment is also “final” even if the appeal is not. [53] Holding that our judgments do not take effect until they are “final” serves only to confuse when they actually take effect. As a historical matter, our judgments almost never change on rehearing. In the last 10 fiscal years, this Court issued more than 1100 majority and per curiam opinions. On rehearing, we changed less than 50 of the opinions, and those almost always in minor respects that had no effect on the judgment. In only four cases did the prevailing party in the judgment change. [54] Thus, the chance that an original judgment will differ from the final judgment is about 1 in 300. We should not let such long odds dictate the general rule about when our judgments take effect. Finally, there are also constitutional considerations in deciding when our decisions take effect. The Texas Constitution grants the Legislature alone the power to suspend laws. [55] That provision has never prevented the courts from suspending a law that is itself unconstitutional. But once we decide that a law is constitutional, keeping the law suspended during our administrative steps leading to finality and a mandate is (to say the least) problematic.    When a mandate conflicts with a judgment or opinion, it is the mandate that must yield. [56] The same should be true regarding when our decisions take effect. Perhaps “it ain’t over till it’s over,” but a judgment from the Supreme Court of Texas ought to mean “it’s over.” Accordingly, as a general rule I would hold that our decisions take effect when we issue a judgment. _______________________________ Scott Brister