Mark Aguirre, a former Houston police captain working as an independent contractor for Dr. Steven Hotze's organization, was involved in an October 19, 2020 automobile accident with David Lopez, and Hotze was not at the scene.¹ Lopez says Hotze hired Aguirre to look for voter fraud, that Hotze told a former U.S. Attorney in a recorded call that Aguirre planned to "run into" Lopez and make a citizen's arrest, and that two days later Aguirre rammed Lopez's truck, held him at gunpoint and was paid $211,000 by Hotze's organization the next day.² The Harris County district attorney indicted Aguirre and Hotze, and Lopez sued both men in civil court, with Hotze's potential liability derivative of Aguirre's alleged misconduct.³

Lopez sued Hotze on March 30, 2021, and the trial court denied Hotze's motion to stay the civil proceedings pending the criminal case, after which Hotze sought mandamus relief from this Court.¹ The Court ordered merits briefing on June 20, 2025.² While the petition was pending a newly elected district attorney, finding that his predecessor had pursued investigations of political opponents, dismissed all charges against Hotze and most against Aguirre, and Aguirre then moved to join Hotze's petition.³ On June 26, 2026 the Court denied the petition without prejudice, with statements respecting the denial by Justice Devine, joined by Justices Busby and Bland, and by Justice Hawkins, joined by Justices Devine and Sullivan.⁴ The Court also lifted its earlier stay.

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus; denied without prejudice on June 26, 2026, with statements respecting the denial by Justices Devine and Hawkins.⁵

• Hotze:¹ whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to stay while a parallel criminal case involving identical facts is pending against co-defendant Aguirre, and whether the civil case should be stayed given the conspiracy, joint-enterprise and respondeat superior theories asserted against Hotze.
• Lopez:² whether Hotze has shown he is entitled to a stay and whether Texas courts have consistently denied stays in civil cases while criminal matters are pending.

Whether the civil case should be stayed.

Dr. Hotze (Relator): The allegations against Aguirre are inextricably intertwined with Hotze's defense, Aguirre will have to invoke the Fifth Amendment while his criminal case is pending, which will produce an adverse inference in the civil case that prejudices Hotze, and Hotze cannot defend himself effectively without questioning Aguirre.¹ He earlier sought the stay because the parallel criminal case against him involved the identical facts and the Fifth Amendment dilemma it created.²

David Lopez (Real Party in Interest): A district court retains discretion to let a civil case proceed while a criminal matter on the same facts is pending, Texas courts have consistently denied such stays, the federal "special circumstances" factors concern a civil defendant's own invocation of the privilege and do not apply when another party may refuse to testify, and any prosecutorial misconduct is now moot.³

Whether the Court should adopt a stay standard.

Justice Devine (statement): This Court has never articulated a standard, the federal multi-factor balancing tests are indeterminate and insulate stay decisions from meaningful appellate review, and he proposes that a stay be granted when a civil defendant faces parallel criminal charges arising from the same conduct unless the opposing party shows a compelling reason to proceed or stipulates to a jury instruction barring an adverse inference from invoking the Fifth Amendment.⁴

Justice Hawkins (statement): The Court may take up the question at some point, but Hotze is no longer a criminal defendant, Aguirre is not the relator and the record does not show he made a predicate request in the trial court, and because Aguirre's criminal case will soon be underway while the civil case has no trial setting, it is unclear the dilemma will come to pass.⁵

The petition argued that Hotze's Fifth Amendment and other rights warrant a stay, and the denial's statements describe the underlying stay-standard question as important but better decided in a case that cleanly presents it.¹

None noted

Holding

The Court denied the petition without prejudice and made no holding on when a civil case must be stayed pending a parallel criminal case.¹

Reasoning

Justice Devine, joined by Justices Busby and Bland, wrote that the petition was a less-than-ideal vehicle because the charges against Hotze were dismissed, Aguirre had not sought a stay in the trial court, and the issue could become moot, so the prudent course was denial without prejudice to preserve the question for a case that cleanly presents it, and that the denial should not be mistaken for a license to proceed as though the criminal case does not exist.² Justice Hawkins, joined by Justices Devine and Sullivan, wrote that two impediments counsel against reaching the question now, the changed posture of Hotze and Aguirre's lack of a predicate request, and the uncertainty whether the dilemma will arise, since Texas courts may not issue advisory opinions, and that nothing stops either man from seeking relief if circumstances change.³

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus denied without prejudice.⁴

Justice Devine filed a statement respecting the denial joined by Justices Busby and Bland, and Justice Hawkins filed a statement joined by Justices Devine and Sullivan.¹