The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (Government Code chapter 2007) lets a property owner file a contested case with a state agency to determine whether a governmental action results in a taking, subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, with a right of appeal to district court afterward.¹ In 2022, Tom and Becky Carlson filed such a contested case against the Comptroller, alleging that its approval of a wind-turbine project in Callahan County resulted in a taking by diminishing the value and enjoyment of their property.² The Comptroller referred the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), where an administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed with the Comptroller that the Carlsons had not timely filed and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on May 19, 2023.³ When the Carlsons asked SOAH whether the order was final, SOAH's general counsel replied that it was not, because all cases referred by the Comptroller are proposal-for-decision cases and the case "goes back to the CPA now" for further action.⁴ Relying on that guidance, the Carlsons waited; the Comptroller first said they would have an order "within the next couple of days," then took the position that the ALJ's order was final, that their remedy was a motion for rehearing, and that it would "stand upon the SOAH Order as issued".⁵

The Carlsons petitioned this Court directly for mandamus, because the Court has exclusive jurisdiction to issue mandamus against the Comptroller as an executive officer, seeking only an order compelling the Comptroller to issue a final order from which they could appeal to district court.¹ The petition was filed January 30, 2024; the Court requested merits briefing on June 21, 2024, and heard argument on January 16, 2025 (Docket). At argument the State defended the Comptroller's position that the ALJ's order was final and the Carlsons had missed the deadline, and the Court asked the State whether SOAH and the Comptroller had a unified position.² On February 21, 2025, the State informed the Court that the Comptroller had on February 14 issued a final decision and argued that the petition was moot, and the Carlsons agreed.³ The Court dismissed the petition on April 25, 2025.⁴

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) against the Comptroller; argued January 16, 2025, and dismissed as moot April 25, 2025.⁵

The Carlsons present whether the Comptroller failed to fulfill a ministerial duty to issue a final and appealable order in a contested case, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.¹ The Comptroller frames the issue as whether, under the Act and Chapter 155 of the Administrative Code, it has a ministerial duty to issue a final decision in response to an ALJ's final and appealable order dismissing the case because SOAH and the Comptroller lacked jurisdiction.² The Court decided only whether the Comptroller's issuance of a final decision moots the petition.³

A case is moot when a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties or the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.¹

Whether the Comptroller must issue a final order.

Relators (the Carlsons): SOAH can issue a proposal for decision but not a final decision on the agency's behalf, so under Government Code sections 2001.058 and 2001.141 the Comptroller must accept, reject, or modify the proposal and issue a final appealable order; because it refuses, mandamus is appropriate, and otherwise they are left with an ALJ decision insulated from review.¹

Respondent (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts): The Carlsons fail to show a clear, non-discretionary duty to issue a decision; the ALJ dismissed the case under SOAH regulations that, unlike comparable ones, do not require remand to the Comptroller, so the order became final and appealable under the Administrative Procedure Act's standard procedures; and the Carlsons had an adequate remedy in a motion for rehearing and a suit for judicial review, which they failed to pursue.²

Mootness. After the Comptroller issued its final decision, the State argued that the petition was moot and the Carlsons agreed, since the change of course gave them all the relief they sought.³

Not applicable. This was an original mandamus proceeding that the Carlsons brought directly in this Court because it has exclusive mandamus jurisdiction over the Comptroller.¹

• Order versus final order. The Carlsons' counsel said ALJs may issue orders, but only the Comptroller can issue a final order disposing of the contested case, and did not delegate that. (Oral Argument, 0:02:33; 0:09:16)
• Decision or proposal. Asked whether an ALJ decision differs from a proposal for decision, the State's counsel said yes, and the referral here was for a decision. (Oral Argument, 0:27:58)
• Solicitor General's views. Asked whether the Court needs the Solicitor General's views, the State's counsel said no, because the Court is getting the State of Texas's position. (Oral Argument, 0:29:11)

None. The docket shows no amicus filings.

Holding

The State's reversal of position, the Comptroller's issuance of a final decision, extinguishes the dispute and makes the mandamus action moot and beyond the Court's jurisdiction, so the petition is dismissed without prejudice to the Carlsons' again seeking relief in this Court if necessary.¹

Reasoning

The Court compared the Carlsons' predicament to that of the claimant in Mosley v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, who followed the government's instructions on how to seek review only to be told she had forfeited it.² After nearly two years of opposing the Carlsons' approach, the State reversed course and agreed to move their contested case toward judicial review along the path they first sought, so the dispute no longer exists.³ The Court noted that the State's letter did not say whether the Comptroller's legal position on finality had changed or how its new decision squared with its earlier position that SOAH had already issued the final decision.⁴

A court's job is to resolve genuine disputes between parties about their legal rights, not abstract questions; the Court's desire to resolve ambiguity in the law about how to seek judicial review after a SOAH dismissal does not give it power to do so without a live controversy, which is the judicial power.⁵

Disposition

The Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction as moot, without prejudice to the Carlsons' seeking relief again in this Court if necessary.⁶

Vote Breakdown

Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Blacklock

Joined by Bland, Boyd, Busby, Devine, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.