Argument Alert: Week of March 2, 2026 (SCOTX)
Glory's Last Shot (and something is rotten in the state of Texas...rancid meat!)
For the subset of appellate nerds who are also longtime PGA Tour followers, the last argument week of the term feels a bit like when the PGA Championship was where it belonged in the schedule—in August. It was dubbed “Glory’s Last Shot” because it was players’ last chance to win a major for the year. As I noted in a prior post, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, which still has several more argument sittings, the Texas Supreme Court will close its arguments this week.
It seems unlikely that the Court will extend arguments later into the term going forward. SCOTX could push back its start date to account for the new petition process. As most of you I’m sure know, it’s the “October Term” at SCOTUS, which begins the first Monday in October. In contrast, SCOTX typically starts the Tuesday after Labor Day. An adjustment to that schedule could give the Court additional time to consider petitions and set them for the same term.
Ok, back to this week’s arguments. The cases run the gamut. One case represents an increasingly prevalent issue on the Court’s docket—the gift clauses. Just a few terms ago, Justice Young delivered the opinion of the Court in 22-1149, Borgelt v. Austin Firefighters Association. Several more gift clause challenges have followed, including to Harris County’s UBI plan (24-0325, In re State of Texas). And now another this week (State v. City of McAllen et al.).1 Others cases on the docket involve construction of an oil and gas royalty (Fasken v. Puig), the constitutionality of closing public beaches (three consolidated cases brought by SaveRGV), and whether a party can recover in quantum meruit when there is a contract (Champion Food Serv., Inc. v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C involves delivery of spoiled/rotten meat).
Also notable for this coming week’s arguments, the Court will travel to the Rio Grande Valley for its annual Court on the road. Each year the Court tries to visit a different location to engage the public and students. The term I served as Justice Young’s staff attorney, we went to UTEP’s campus. It was great fun and a great privilege to attend. The Court was scheduled to hear arguments at SMU Law School in November 2025. But the Court’s plans changed in late-September 2025. Now, the Court is headed on the road to the UTRGV Performing Arts Complex (EPAC) in Edinburg, Texas for its final day of argument for the term.2
You can tune in to the Court’s arguments live at the YouTube channel. They’re also available for viewing shortly after arguments have concluded.
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
No. 24-0924, MV Transp., Inc. v. GDS Transport, LLC
Dallas County (Fifth Court of Appeals)
Transportation Code section 452.056(d) limits the damages liability of a regional transportation authority’s independent contractor that performs a function of the authority to the extent of the authority’s liability. MV Transportation argues that this statute grants it complete immunity from liability for alleged fraud under the facts of this case.
MV Transportation, Inc: Stacy R. Obenhaus, Foley & Lardner LLP (Dallas)
GDS Transport, LLC: Julia F. Pendery, Cowles & Thompson, P.C. (Dallas)
No. 24-1033, Fasken Oil v. Puig
Webb County (Fourth Court of Appeals)
In this case, the parties dispute the method for calculating the value of oil and gas minerals upon which to pay a royalty. The royalty reserves “an undivided one-sixteenth (1/16) of all the oil, gas and other minerals, except coal, in, to and under or that may be produced from the above described acreage, to be paid or delivered to Grantor, B.A. Puig, Jr., as his own property free of cost forever.” Fasken operates wells on the relevant leaseholds. In paying the royalty owed, Fasken deducted costs incurred after production to arrive at the market value of the minerals produced at the wellhead.
Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd: Douglas Alexander, Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP (Austin)
Baldomero A. Puig III, et al: Charles “Skip” Watson, Greenberg Traurig LLP (Austin)
No. 24-1070, River Creek Dev. Corp. v. Preston Hollow Cap. LLC
Williamson County (Third Court of Appeals)
The principal issues in this case are whether certain public financing agreements are void because they were not submitted to the Attorney General for approval under Chapter 431 of the Transportation Code and whether the agreements comply with the Public Improvement District Act.
River Creek Development Corporation, et al: George E. Hyde, Hyde Kelley LLP of (Austin)
Preston Hollow Capital, LLC: David S. Coale, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann LLP (Dallas)
Wednesday, March 4, 2026
No. 25-0161, Gopalan v. Marsh
Travis County (Third Court of Appeals)
At issue in this case is whether, in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship tried to a jury, a parent awarded the exclusive right to designate the child’s “primary residence” must also receive at least 50% possession.
Prabhakar Gopalan: Stephen M. Orsinger, Law Offices of Stephen M. Orsinger (Austin) & Richard R. Orsinger, Orsinger, Nelson, Downing & Anderson LLP of (San Antonio)
Andre Marsh: Audrey J. Blair (Dallas)
No. 25-0297, Champion Food Serv., Inc. v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C.
Bexar County (Fourth Court of Appeals)
The issues in this case are whether ProAlamo may recover in quantum meruit and whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees.
Champion Food Service, Inc., et al.: Santos Vargas, Davis & Santos PLLC (San Antonio)
ProAlamo Foods, LLC, et al.: Kevin Terrazas, Arambula Terrazas PLLC (Austin)
No. 25-0317, In re Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Harris County (Fourteenth Court of Appeals)
In this original proceeding, the central question is whether a shipper who hires a carrier owes a duty to a third‑party motorist injured by the carrier’s driver.
Home Depot U.S.A, Inc.: Michael W. Eady, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP (Austin)
Jean Luis Alana Perozo, et al.: Daryl L. Moore, AZA Law (Houston)
Thursday, March 5, 2026
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley - Performing Arts Complex (EPAC)
No. 24-0237, Tex. Gen. Land Off. v. SaveRGV
~consolidated for oral argument with~
No. 24-0407, Cameron Co. v. SaveRGV
~consolidated for oral argument with~
No. 24-0457, Paxton v. SaveRGV
Cameron County (Thirteenth Court of Appeals)
The issue is whether a citizens’ group may challenge a statute authorizing the closure of public beaches as unconstitutional.
Texas General Land Office, and Ken Paxton: Beth Klusmann, Office of the Attorney General (Austin)
Cameron County: James Allison, Allison, Bass & Magee, LLP (Austin)
SaveRGV: Marisa Perales, Perales, Allmon & Ice PC (Austin)
No. 24-1060, State v. City of McAllen
Travis County (Third Court of Appeals)
(Justice Hawkins not participating)
At issue in this case is whether Senate Bill 1004 and Senate Bill 1152 are unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clauses.
State of Texas: William R. Peterson, Office of the Attorney General (Austin)3
City of McAllen et al.: C. Robert Heath, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP (Austin)4
There is also a Gift Clause case pending in the 15th Court of Appeals: No. 15-25-00231-CV, State v. Harris County. That case deals, in part, with payments to attorneys through the Immigrant Legal Services Fund (ILSF) for representing indigent individuals in immigration proceedings. The 15th Court denied the State’s request for temporary relief, signaling that, at least preliminarily, the Justices do not believe the State is likely to succeed in challenging the expenditures under one of the Gift Clauses (Texas has several!).
The Court cites Article V, Section 3(a) in the letters about the alternate location for argument. I have never seen anything in that provision about the Court hearing arguments on the road. If anyone has any ideas why this provision is cited, message me!
The cities have not filed an argument acknowledgment form as of February 26, 2026. The listed advocates signed the briefs for the City of Houston and the City of McAllen (and others). This page will be updated once the “Submission Schedule” is posted to the Court’s website.