Supreme Court
Paxton v. Am. Oversight
- Case number: 24-0162
- Legal category: Administrative Law
- Subtype: Public Information Act
- Set for oral argument: February 19, 2025
Case Summary
At issue is whether trial courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against the Governor and Attorney General to compel information under the Public Information Act.
In 2021 and 2022, American Oversight submitted various PIA requests to the Office of the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General. These requests largely pertained to official governmental communications surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, and the 2022 shooting in Uvalde. Both offices provided some documents but also reported that they did not find documents responsive to the requests for communications between government officials and external entities, including the National Rifle Association. Both offices also sought to withhold information they view as excepted from disclosure. Both offices received open records letter rulings from OAG’s Open Records Decision opining that the documents are excepted from disclosure and can be withheld.
American Oversight sued the Governor and Attorney General in their official capacities in Travis County district court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of the requested information. The Governor and Attorney General filed pleas to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity and mootness. They argued, among other things, that American Oversight failed to plead a viable claim that they had “refuse[d]” to supply public information. The trial court denied the pleas. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Governor and Attorney General petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the trial court lacked mandamus jurisdiction over American Oversight’s suit because only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against executive officers. They also argue that American Oversight has not demonstrated a waiver of sovereign immunity by showing that the government refused to supply public information. The Court granted the petition.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.