Skip to main content

The Supreme Court of Texas is the highest civil appeals court in the State of Texas. It consists of eight justices and a chief justice. As the final authority on civil law in the state (though not criminal law), the Supreme Court plays a central role in shaping Texas jurisprudence. Its rulings carry statewide implications, often setting legal precedent on issues ranging from property disputes and contractual interpretation to constitutional rights under Texas law.

The court not only decides individual appeals but also sets the procedural rules that govern how civil cases are tried and appealed throughout the state. This includes rules of civil procedure, rules of appellate procedure, rules of evidence, and other courtroom standards used by judges and attorneys statewide. The court also oversees the State Bar of Texas1 and appoints members to the Board of Law Examiners,2 giving it substantial influence over the legal profession.

The Texas Supreme Court normally meets in Austin, but the state constitution allows it to “sit at any time during the year… at the court’s discretion, at any other location in this state for the transaction of business.”3 Occasionally, the court does hold oral arguments in other cities.

“Sicut Patribus, Sit Deus Nobis.”

Texas Supreme Court motto, which means, ‘May God be with us, as he was with our fathers.’

Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of Texas has final appellate jurisdiction over all civil and juvenile cases arising under state law.4 Most cases reach the court through petitions for review from the 15 intermediate Courts of Appeals. The Texas Supreme Court does not hear criminal cases. Final appellate authority in criminal matters instead rests with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

The only exception is juvenile delinquency cases, which are classified as civil proceedings under the Texas Family Code.5 This division of authority reflects Texas’s unique bifurcated appellate system. Texas is one of only two states in the United States where civil and criminal appeals are handled by separate high courts.

Elections and Term of Office

Texas Supreme Court justices are elected in partisan statewide elections, unless appointed to fill a vacancy. They serve staggered six-year terms, with three justices up for election every two years.6

When a vacancy arises on the court, the governor may appoint a justice to serve the remainder of the unexpired term, subject to confirmation by the Texas Senate. In practice, many justices retire before the end of their final term, allowing the governor to appoint a successor who then runs for reelection as an incumbent.

In effect, this means that the Texas system of judicial selection is a hybrid between an appointive system and an elective one.

Qualifications of Justices

According to Article 5, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution, justices must be:

  • at least 35 years old
  • a citizen of the United States
  • a resident of Texas
  • licensed to practice law in Texas
  • have practiced law for at least ten years, or have been a judge for at least ten years.

Current Justices

The current justices of the court are:

Place 1: Jimmy Blacklock (chief justice)

Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock was first appointed to the Supreme Court of Texas in January 2018 by Governor Greg Abbott. Justice Blacklock was elected by the public following his appointment and re-elected in 2024. Governor Abbott then appointed him to serve as the Court’s 28th Chief Justice in January 2025.

Before joining the Court, Justice Blacklock served as Governor Abbott’s General Counsel and in the Attorney General’s Office under then-AG Abbott. While at the AG’s Office, he handled appeals and trials of constitutional cases in state and federal court involving matters such as federalism, religious liberty, and the separation of powers. 

As Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel, he oversaw the Open Records and Opinions divisions of the AG’s Office. Earlier in his career, Justice Blacklock was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and he worked in private practice in Houston and Austin. He clerked for Judge Jerry Smith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after graduating with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas and a J.D. from Yale Law School. Justice Blacklock was born in Houston and now lives in Austin with his wife and three daughters.

Place 2: James P. Sullivan

Justice James P. Sullivan was appointed to the Supreme Court of Texas by Governor Greg Abbott in January 2025.

Before joining the Court, Justice Sullivan served as General Counsel to Governor Abbott and as Assistant Solicitor General under then-Attorney General Abbott.  He also worked as an appellate litigator in private practice and as an adjunct professor at George Mason University.

Justice Sullivan was a law clerk to Judge Thomas B. Griffith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Rice University and his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, where he was an Articles Editor on the Harvard Law Review.  Justice Sullivan lives in Austin with his wife, Alithea, and their son.

Place 3: Debra Lehrmann

Justice Debra Lehrmann is the Senior Justice on the Supreme Court of Texas and the Court’s longest-serving woman Justice in Texas history. With a total of almost 35 years of judicial experience, she was a trial judge in Tarrant County for 23 years prior to her appellate service and has served the Bar in leadership capacities on both a state and national level.

She served as the inaugural chair of the State Bar of Texas Child Protection Law Section and is a prior chair of the Family Law Section of the ABA. She is a commissioner on the Uniform Law Commission, a member of the American Law Institute, a fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation and the American Bar Foundation, a charter member of the Tarrant County Bar Foundation, an emeritus member and past president of the Lloyd Lochridge Inn of Court in Austin, and an emeritus member of the Eldon B. Mahon Inn of Court in Fort Worth.

Justice Lehrmann speaks frequently at continuing legal education events on a broad variety of topics throughout the state and country. She has received numerous awards and recognitions, including the University of Houston Law Center’s Sondock Jurist-in-Residence, the Texas Women Lawyers Pathfinder Award; the Child Protection Law Section Founder’s Award; the Court-Appointed Special Advocates Scott Moore Award in recognition for her service to children who are the subjects of abuse and neglect proceedings; the Texas Bar Foundation’s recognition for Best Law Review Article; and the Judge Eva Barnes Award for dedication and outstanding service to the legal profession.

A member of Phi Beta Kappa, Justice Lehrmann received her undergraduate degree with high honors from The University of Texas, her law degree from UT School of Law, and her LL.M. from Duke University. She and her husband have two sons, both practicing lawyers; a daughter-in-law; and two grandchildren.

Justice Lehrmann was most recently re-elected to her position in November 2022 to a term that expires December 31, 2028.

Place 4: John Devine

Justice John Devine was first elected to the Supreme Court of Texas in November 2012. He previously served for seven years as judge of the 190th State District Court in Harris County and for nine years as an appointed special judge for the Harris County justice of the peace courts.

A native of Indiana, Justice Devine attended Ball State University, graduating in 1980 with a B.S. degree in business administration and marketing. Following graduation, Justice Devine became a Texan and entered the corporate world of Shell Oil Co. in Houston as an analyst and later worked in various corporate and project-oriented positions. While at Shell, he was accepted by South Texas College of Law, graduating with a juris doctorate in 1986. Justice Devine remained with Shell until 1987. The next year Devine went to work for Brown & Root Inc., and again contributed to numerous corporate as well as major international and domestic industrial construction projects.

Justice Devine was elected in 1995 and re-elected in 1998 to the district court. During his tenure, he tried nearly 350 jury trials and presided over more than 500 bench trials. In 1998, he was voted well qualified by the Houston Bar Association. Justice Devine reduced his court’s case backlog by more than 40 percent during his two terms. He was awarded the title of “Texas Size Hero” by Focus on the Family magazine.

In his private litigation practice since 2002, Justice Devine represented both plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts. In 2002, he was appointed as a special judge for the Harris County justice courts and served until 2011. Devine was also a member of the District of Columbia Bar Association, the Board of Civil District Judge Mass Torts Committee, Board of Civil District Judges, the Harris County Juvenile Justice Charter School Board and the Harris County Juvenile Board.

Justice Devine has been married since 1989 to Nubia Piedad Gomez, formerly of Venezuela, and the couple has six children.

Justice Devine was re-elected in 2024 to a term that expires December 31, 2031.

Place 5: Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle

Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle was appointed to the Supreme Court of Texas by Governor Greg Abbott in October 2020 and elected to a full term in 2022. She is a native of El Paso, where she grew up and attended Stephen F. Austin High School. Justice Huddle earned her undergraduate degree in political science at Stanford University and taught Spanish for a year before returning to Texas to attend law school. She earned her law degree at the University of Texas School of Law, where she was the recipient of three endowed presidential scholarships and graduated with honors. 

Before entering public service, Justice Huddle practiced law at Baker Botts L.L.P., where she handled litigation matters ranging from individual personal injury cases to complex commercial and shareholder disputes and appeals. She was admitted to the firm’s partnership in 2008. In 2011, Justice Huddle was appointed by then Governor Rick Perry to serve as a justice on the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas. She was then elected to that office in 2012. During her tenure at the First Court of Appeals, Justice Huddle authored more than 400 reasoned majority opinions and worked with her colleagues to dispose of many hundreds more appeals.  Justice Huddle returned to Baker Botts as a partner in 2017, resuming her practice in commercial litigation and appeals. She served as the Partner-in-Charge of the firm’s Houston office beginning in 2018.    

Justice Huddle has long been engaged in the community, in bar activities, and in mentoring younger lawyers. She is a member of the American Law Institute, a Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation, and a Fellow of the Houston Bar Foundation. While in private practice, she served as a member of Texas’s Judicial Compensation Commission. In 2018, she received the Houston Bar Association Appellate Section’s award for Outstanding Judicial Service and Leadership. She was named a Woman on the Move by Texas Executive Women in 2019. She has served as a member of the board of directors of the Greater Houston Partnership, the Houston Area Women’s Center, and the Kinkaid School Investments Foundation.  

Justice Huddle and her husband, Greg, have two teenage daughters. 

Her current term expires on December 31, 2028.

Place 6: Jane Bland
Justice Jane Bland

Jane Bland has served in the state judiciary for 25 years and on the Supreme Court of Texas since 2019. Before her service on the Court, she served 15 years as a justice on the First Court of Appeals and six years as a State District Judge.

Justice Bland chairs the Judicial Commission on Mental Health. She is also the Court’s liaison to the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society. She is the deputy liaison to the Court’s Rules Advisory Committee. She is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Civil Rules for the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Throughout her career, Justice Bland has been recognized for her work to improve our state’s judiciary. In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts presented her with the William H. Rehnquist Award, given to a state court judge who exemplifies the highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics. The Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists has recognized her as the judge of the year four times. She has received several President’s Awards for her work with the Houston Bar Association and the Houston Young Lawyers Association. Justice Bland is board-certified in civil appellate law and civil trial law.

She earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. Following law school, Justice Bland clerked for the Honorable Thomas Gibbs Gee on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She began her practice at Baker Botts LLP. Before her appointment to the Court, she was a partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP in Houston.

Justice Bland has chaired the board of Houston Volunteer Lawyers and the Oversight Committee for the Texas Pattern Jury Charges. She served on the Court’s Commission to Expand Civil Legal Services and the Board of Legal Specialization’s Civil Appellate Law Advisory Commission. She is a senior trustee of the UT Law School Foundation.

Justice Bland was re-elected to the bench in 2024 to a term that expires December 31, 2031. She and her husband, Doug, have two grown children.

Place 7: Jeff Boyd
Justice Jeff Boyd

Jeff Boyd joined the Court on December 3, 2012, appointed by Governor Rick Perry to fill Justice Dale Wainwright’s unexpired term. Wainwright resigned September 30th. Justice Boyd was the governor’s chief of staff since September 2011. Before that he was Gov. Perry’s general counsel.

Boyd is a graduate of Abilene Christian University and earned his law degree summa cum laude from Pepperdine University, where he graduated second in his law school class. After graduation he clerked for Judge Thomas M. Reavley on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

He spent 15 years with Thompson & Knight L.L.P. in two stints, leaving first in 2000 to join then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn as deputy attorney general for general litigation and continuing with Attorney General Greg Abbott. He rejoined Thompson & Knight as senior partner in 2003.

In January 2011 he left Thompson & Knight to join the Governor’s Office as general counsel.

Justice Boyd was named a Texas Super Lawyer for government practice in 2004 and in 2006-2010. He has been a Supreme Court Advisory Committee member since 2003.

He has served as board president and director of Volunteer Legal Services of Central Texas, as chair and director of Goodwill Industries of Central Texas and as a director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. He is serving a one-year term as president of the American Inns of Court, Robert W. Calvert Inn.

Before he went to law school, Boyd worked as youth and family minister of the Brentwood Oaks Church of Christ in Austin and was on the Brentwood Christian School board from 1994 to 2000.

He and his wife, Jackie, have twin daughters, a son, and one grandson.

Justice Boyd was re-elected in November 2020 to a term that ends December 31, 2026.

Place 8: Brett Busby
Justice Brett Busby

Brett Busby was appointed to the Court by Governor Greg Abbott in February 2019, confirmed unanimously by the Texas Senate, and elected to a full term in November 2020. An experienced appellate litigator, Justice Busby was a partner at the Bracewell firm in Houston and served on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals for six years before joining the Supreme Court.

Justice Busby is a seventh-generation Texan, third-generation Eagle Scout, and life-long violinist who grew up in Amarillo and Austin. After graduating with high honors from Duke University and Columbia Law School, he served as a law clerk to Justices Byron R. White (Ret.) and John Paul Stevens, U.S. Supreme Court, and to Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

In private practice, Busby represented plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Texas, and federal and state appellate courts. Super Lawyers Magazine named him one of the top 100 lawyers in Texas in 2012, and Chambers and Partners recognized him as a leading Texas appellate lawyer. He is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law and is a former adjunct professor at the University of Texas Law School, where he helped teach the U.S. Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

In 2018, the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists recognized Justice Busby’s judicial service by naming him Appellate Judge of the Year. He has also received the Judge of the Year Award from the Hispanic Bar Association of Houston and the Outstanding Mentor Award from the Houston Young Lawyers Association. Attorneys consistently rate Justice Busby highly in judicial evaluation polls.

Justice Busby is dedicated to improving the justice system and the legal profession. His fellow Texas appellate lawyers recently elected him as Chair of the State Bar of Texas Appellate Section. He works closely with the Texas Access to Justice Commission, which helps assure that Texans with limited means have access to basic civil legal services. He previously served on the Texas Multi-District Litigation Panel and chaired the State Bar Committee on Pattern Jury Charges (Business, Consumer, Insurance, and Employment). Busby is also active in his community: he is a Senior Fellow of the American Leadership Forum and has served on the boards of the Post Oak School and the Houston Symphony (where he chaired the Artistic Affairs Committee and the Music Director Selection Committee).

Justice Busby and his wife, Erin, met as law clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court. They have two children.

His current term ends December 31, 2026.

Place 9: Evan A. Young
Justice Evan Young

Justice Evan A. Young was appointed to the Supreme Court of Texas in November 2021 by Governor Greg Abbott. Justice Young subsequently was elected in November 2022 to a term that expires December 31, 2028.

Justice Young clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and served as Counsel to the Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, during which time he spent nearly a year based at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, helping lead the U.S. Government’s Rule of Law mission.

He joined the law firm Baker Botts L.L.P. and served as chair of the firm’s Supreme Court and Constitutional Law practice group. Justice Young, who served as a member of the Texas Judicial Council from 2017 until his appointment to the Supreme Court, is a former chair of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Texas Regional Office, a member of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, an elected member of the American Law Institute, and an adjunct professor at The University of Texas School of Law.

Justice Young received Bachelor of Arts degrees from Duke University and from Oxford University, where he was a British Marshall Scholar, and his law degree from Yale Law School. He is a graduate of Tom C. Clark High School in San Antonio and now resides in Austin with his wife, Tobi, and their daughter.

All current members of the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans.

Staff and Organization Chart

The staff of the Supreme Court are organized into nine chambers, each serving one justice, plus an administrative staff and clerk’s office that serve the court as a whole.

Each chambers staff consists of an executive assistant, a permanent staff attorney, and two law clerks, who are usually recent law school graduates and serve a one-year term.

The staff attorneys and law clerks assist the justice with legal research, opinion drafting, cite checking, and analysis of the hundreds of petitions for review the court receives each year.

Texas Supreme Court Organization Chart

Administratively, the court is overseen by a chief clerk, who is appointed by the justices and serves a four-year term. Assisted by several deputies, the chief clerk receives and processes electronic filings and interfaces with the public.

Finally, the Supreme Court also employs more than a dozen staff in support of two permanent commissions, the Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families, and the Texas Judicial Commission on Mental Health.

In total, the court employs approximately 85 staff members, including the nine justices.

Texas Supreme Court building

Judicial Process and Case Flow

Most cases reach the Texas Supreme Court through petitions for review filed by parties seeking to overturn or clarify decisions from the state’s intermediate Courts of Appeals. Each week, justices must cast their votes on pending petitions by Thursday at noon. A petition is eligible for discussion in conference if even one justice votes to consider it. If three justices vote to request full briefing, the case will proceed to the next stage. Four votes are required to grant a petition for review in civil cases, and five votes are required to hear oral argument in original proceedings such as writs of mandamus.

To facilitate the process, each justice receives a packet—either electronically or in print—listing the week’s petitions. Each case has an individual voting sheet where justices can mark notes, highlight conflicts, and indicate how they intend to vote. These votes are tallied by Court staff and used to determine which petitions are denied automatically and which proceed to further deliberation. The system allows for continuous docket management and ensures that only legally significant or unresolved issues rise to the Court’s full attention.

Each Thursday at noon, justices of the Texas Supreme Court submit their votes on petitions for review that are pending that week. To manage this workload, each justice is provided a folder—often in both print and digital formats—containing a master list of cases and individual voting sheets. The master list is typically printed on purple paper and lists all pending petitions. Each petition has a corresponding pink sheet where the justice records notes and preliminary votes. Although the Court maintains an electronic platform for voting, many justices prefer to review petitions and record notes on paper, especially while traveling.

In reviewing a petition, a justice typically begins by scanning the parties, counsel of record, and issues presented. The justice then turns to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, often found at the end of the petition. This opinion provides a concise summary of the case and is helpful in determining what, if anything, the petitioner is seeking to challenge. After reviewing the summary and, if needed, the full argument section, the justice determines whether the petition raises important legal questions. If so, the justice may recommend discussion, briefing, or full review. Votes are marked and later entered electronically by the justice’s assistant or chambers staff.

Once the Court grants review of a petition, it requests full briefing on the merits from both parties. The petitioner submits a detailed opening brief, laying out the legal background, procedural history, argument, and requested relief. The respondent then files a response brief, and the petitioner may file a reply. These briefs must adhere to length and formatting rules and are typically supported by appendices containing excerpts from the record. The Court may also receive amicus curiae briefs from interested third parties seeking to influence the Court’s interpretation or raise policy considerations.

The purpose of this stage is to allow the justices to fully examine the legal and factual basis of the appeal before scheduling oral argument. Full briefing provides a more complete record than is often included in the initial petition. This is particularly important in complex cases involving statutory interpretation, constitutional claims, or novel issues of Texas law. The Court reviews the briefs alongside lower court opinions, legislative history, and relevant precedent in order to prepare for meaningful oral argument and conference deliberation.

While the parties are responsible for the content and persuasiveness of their briefs, law clerks and permanent legal staff within each justice’s chambers often assist in analyzing the filings and preparing bench memos. These memos distill key facts and issues, highlight inconsistencies or ambiguities, and may identify areas where oral argument could be particularly illuminating. By the time the briefing is complete, the justices are expected to be well-versed in the record and legal framework governing the dispute.

The Court holds oral arguments approximately once a month, typically over a span of three consecutive days. Each day, the Court hears three cases, and each side is allotted 20 minutes to present its argument. Arguments are held in the courtroom at the Supreme Court Building in Austin and are open to the public. They are also livestreamed and archived online, allowing legal professionals, litigants, and the public to observe the proceedings.

Oral arguments give justices an opportunity to question attorneys directly and test the implications of their legal theories. Although the format is formal, questioning is often active and pointed. Justices may interrupt at any time to seek clarification or challenge assertions. In some cases, the Court may grant additional time for argument or rebuttal. Following each argument, the Court takes the case under advisement and schedules it for conference at a later date.

The questions posed during oral argument often serve as a preview of the Court’s concerns and can offer insight into how the justices may be leaning. Advocates who respond directly and candidly may help clarify key issues or resolve uncertainties that exist in the briefing. However, oral argument rarely determines the outcome on its own; it is one component of a multi-stage deliberative process, and its impact depends heavily on the quality of the briefs and the clarity of the legal record.

After oral arguments conclude, the justices meet in private conference to deliberate on cases. These meetings are held approximately once per month and are confidential. Each conference begins with preliminary matters, such as emergency filings or time-sensitive motions, before turning to post-submission cases that have been fully briefed and argued. The justice assigned to write the majority opinion opens discussion by summarizing their position. If there are dissenting or concurring drafts, those authors may speak next. The remaining justices contribute in turn, usually proceeding in counterclockwise order around the table.

Although justices sit in order of seniority, the speaking order in conference is not dictated by rank. The tone is formal and collegial, with justices referring to one another by title. The purpose is to test the logic of the proposed opinion, raise legal or factual concerns, and reach a consensus or majority view. Staff attorneys and law clerks may be present to answer factual or procedural questions, but they do not participate in the final vote. The conference ensures that each case receives detailed attention and that the Court’s final opinions reflect collective reasoning rather than isolated views.

Conference discussions may result in changes to previously circulated drafts or shifts in alignment among the justices. Occasionally, a justice may decide to withdraw support for a draft opinion or write separately to express a distinct rationale. Once consensus is reached—or a majority formed—the Court moves forward with the process of finalizing its opinion. The internal give-and-take of conference plays a vital role in shaping how Texas law is interpreted and applied across a range of civil matters.

The justice assigned to write the Court’s opinion begins drafting once conference discussion has clarified the outcome and legal rationale. Drafts are circulated to the full Court for review, with each justice indicating whether they will join, write separately, or request revisions. Draft concurrences and dissents are also shared, and the opinions may undergo several rounds of revision as justices respond to one another’s reasoning and language.

Each justice’s chambers typically includes a permanent staff attorney and two law clerks, who assist with the drafting process. They help refine legal arguments, verify citations, and ensure that the opinion accurately reflects the Court’s majority position. While the justices are ultimately responsible for the substance and tone of the opinion, their staff plays a crucial role in managing the volume and complexity of the caseload.

The goal of this stage is not merely to reach agreement but to produce a well-reasoned opinion that provides clarity and stability in the law. Opinions must be written with sufficient precision to serve as precedent for lower courts and litigants statewide. Once the opinion has been approved by a majority of the justices—typically five or more—it is ready for release to the public.

Final opinions and orders are typically issued on Fridays, except during summer recess. Each published opinion includes the majority view and, where applicable, separate concurrences or dissents. Opinions may be issued under the name of the authoring justice or per curiam, meaning “by the court,” when no single justice is named. Per curiam opinions are generally reserved for cases that present straightforward legal questions or unanimous outcomes.

All final decisions are made available to the public through the Court’s website, where they are indexed by docket number and subject area. Orders are also published, indicating whether petitions were granted, denied, or dismissed. These documents form a core part of Texas jurisprudence and are regularly cited by lower courts, practitioners, and legal scholars.

The Court’s issuance process is closely managed to ensure timeliness, accuracy, and consistency in legal reasoning. Once opinions are released, they may be cited as binding precedent. For practitioners, timely review of new opinions is essential for staying current on the state of Texas law, particularly in fields such as contracts, torts, property, and constitutional interpretation.

After the issuance of an opinion, parties may file a motion for rehearing within a limited time period. These motions request the Court to revisit its decision based on legal error, newly discovered evidence, or other grounds permitted under the rules. Although rehearings are rarely granted, they serve as a procedural safeguard for correcting errors or clarifying ambiguous rulings. At least three justices must vote to grant rehearing, at which point the case may return to conference or be scheduled for further briefing.

Rehearing motions are evaluated with care but are not treated as a second opportunity to argue the same points. The Court expects such filings to be narrowly focused and supported by legal authority. In some cases, a rehearing may lead the Court to withdraw and substitute an opinion to correct or clarify its reasoning. These substitute opinions are clearly marked and published alongside the original.

In addition to rehearings, the Court may receive motions to stay its judgment, recall a mandate, or expedite the issuance of its opinion. These are considered on a case-by-case basis and typically require extraordinary circumstances. While such motions rarely affect the outcome, they reflect the dynamic nature of appellate litigation and the Court’s ongoing duty to administer justice with fairness and precision.

In addition to appellate review, the Supreme Court of Texas exercises jurisdiction over original proceedings, including petitions for writs of mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus. These cases typically arise when a party alleges that a trial court has acted beyond its authority or that an urgent matter requires immediate intervention. Because original proceedings bypass the normal appellate route, the threshold for review is higher: five justices must vote to grant oral argument in such cases.

Original proceedings are often decided on an expedited basis and may involve emergency relief, particularly in time-sensitive matters such as election disputes, discovery rulings, or enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court may issue temporary orders to preserve the status quo while it evaluates the legal merits of the petition. Relief is discretionary and granted only where there is no adequate remedy by appeal.

Though less common than petitions for review, original proceedings serve an important role in the judicial system. They allow the Court to address procedural or jurisdictional defects that may not be correctable through ordinary channels. The Court’s opinions in mandamus and habeas cases frequently establish controlling precedent in areas of judicial procedure, administrative law, and trial management.

Case Files and Video of Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court publishes all relevant case documents on its website, accessible to the public, as well as all of its orders and opinions.

Videos of oral arguments are available online through a partnership with the State Bar. Internal deliberations of the court, such as the regular “conference” meeting, are confidential.


Sources and Citations

  1. Texas Government Code § 81.011 ↩︎
  2. Texas Government Code § 82.001(b) ↩︎
  3. Texas Constitution Article V, § 3 ↩︎
  4. Texas Constitution Article V, § 3 ↩︎
  5. Texas Constitution Article V, § 3a; Texas Family Code § 56.01(c)(1)(A) ↩︎
  6. Texas Constitution Article V, § 2(c) ↩︎