Court Opinion

ID: 9893678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-29 14:07:52.228044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:37.400840
License: Public Domain

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
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

                                    2
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

                                       3