Court Opinion

ID: 9690562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:23:10.057461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:59.388300
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
BILL VANCE, Justice.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing urges us to reconsider our opinion because the due process claims of at least one student, Michael Garza, were ripe. They also claim that the declarations sought pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act are separate and distinct claims and not sought simply to avoid the ripeness doctrine.
Texas A & M University argues that we correctly dismissed Garza’s claims as unripe because he chose not to contest his punishment through the university appellate process.1 The University forcefully argues that to allow a student to avoid the disciplinary process and then challenge it in court undermines the ripeness doctrine by allowing a court to engage in abstract disagreements and to interfere with a decision before “it has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way.” See Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and S.E. Tex., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tex.1998).
TAMU further argues that, in evaluating ripeness of- a declaratory judgment claim, courts apply the general principles of ripeness, not a relaxed notion of the ripeness doctrine. It maintains that this court properly found Appellees’ claims were not ripe for adjudication because, by avoiding the University’s appellate process, necessary facts were not developed and the outcome of the disciplinary process remains uncertain.
We agree with TAMU. Because Michael Garza, like the other plaintiffs, did not complete the university disciplinary process, his due process claims are not ripe for adjudication. We deny Appellees’ motion for rehearing.
Chief Justice GRAY dissenting.

. The University also asserts that Garza's claims are moot because at the time of final judgment, Garza had voluntarily withdrawn from school and has now served a longer suspension them required.