On January 23, 2023, the Corpus Christi ISD board adopted prevailing wage rates for district construction projects under Government Code chapter 2258, which requires a public body to determine the prevailing wage for the locality, defined as the political subdivision, either by a survey of similar projects or by using the federal Davis-Bacon rates.¹ The district says its employees surveyed local wages, comparing local contractors' wages, Davis-Bacon rates, the district's past rates, Texas A&M's rates for Nueces County, Workforce Solutions data and information from the union, and then recommended the A&M rates.² The electrical workers say the board simply copied four-year-old Texas A&M rates onto district letterhead, used neither statutory method, and did not survey projects within the district's boundaries.³

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 278 and sixteen members sued the district and its trustees on May 17, 2023, and the 214th District Court of Nueces County granted summary judgment for the district and denied the workers' motion.¹ The Thirteenth Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Justice Benavides, held the union lacks associational standing and the members lack individual standing and that the district itself is immune from the ultra vires claim, but held that members who are district taxpayers have taxpayer standing and that fact issues exist on the survey's compliance, and it reversed in part.² The Supreme Court granted review on May 29, 2026.

Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi-Edinburg); granted May 29, 2026. Argued September 17, 2026.

• The district's trustees:¹ (1) whether the court of appeals improperly expanded the limited taxpayer-standing exception by not requiring the members to identify a concrete expenditure on an illegal activity, and whether their efforts to void contracts and enjoin construction preclude taxpayer standing under Bland ISD v. Blue; and (2) whether it erred by confining the district's survey to projects within the district, rejecting the A&M survey, and not applying section 2258.022(e), which makes the governing body's determination final.
• The workers:² that the court of appeals correctly held the taxpayer workers have taxpayer standing, that their requests for injunctive relief do not defeat it, and that fact questions exist on the merits.

The case comes up on cross-motions for summary judgment, and standing is a threshold question of law.¹

Whether the members have taxpayer standing.

The trustees (Petitioners): Union members dissatisfied with the adopted rates cannot use taxpayer standing unless they plead and prove an actual illegal expenditure, which here would mean a contractor actually paid or intended to pay the adopted rates, and the workers conceded they cannot identify one.¹ Their efforts to void all public-works contracts would be disruptive and conflict with Bland.²

The workers (Respondents): The court of appeals correctly held they have taxpayer standing, and their requests for injunctive relief should not affect that analysis.³

Whether the wage survey complied with the Act.

The trustees (Petitioners): The Act lets a political subdivision survey wages and does not limit what information it may consider or require starting from scratch, so the board properly exercised its discretion, and its determination is final under section 2258.022(e).⁴

The workers (Respondents): The appeals court correctly found fact questions on the merits, because the board adopted A&M rates without surveying similar projects within the district's boundaries.⁵

The trustees argued the court of appeals erred in holding members could use taxpayer standing to challenge the board's prevailing-wage determination and in letting an ultra vires claim second-guess rates the Act commits to the board's discretion.¹ The workers argued review should be denied and the ruling affirmed.²

• Textual basis for taxpayer standing. A Justice asked what constitutional text supports the taxpayer-standing doctrine; the district's counsel called it judicially created, said it was not briefed, and offered supplemental briefing. (Oral Argument, 1:08:34; 1:10:19)
• Is a school district a municipality? Asked whether a school district counts as a municipality for federal municipal-taxpayer standing, counsel did not know and offered supplemental briefing. (Oral Argument, 1:11:08)
• Traditional standing. Asked whether the workers lack ordinary standing, counsel said the court of appeals held they articulated no injury and the workers did not cross-petition on that point. (Oral Argument, 1:11:55)
• What is an illegal expenditure? Pressed on what makes an activity illegal, counsel said Perez, the workers' best case, attacked the tax itself, while here the claim concerns the process for setting wages. (Oral Argument, 1:14:40; 1:16:31)
• How much is a survey? Asked the minimum needed for a survey, counsel said the statute does not define it and leaves it to the local board's discretion. (Oral Argument, 1:19:15)
• A personal economic injury? Asked whether the plaintiffs might have a personal economic injury, counsel said they had ample time after discovery to show a worker paid a challenged wage. (Oral Argument, 1:21:19)
• Overrule Bland? Asked for the constitutional basis for Bland and why not overrule it, the workers' counsel said the issue was not raised, everyone assumed the doctrine continues, and offered supplemental briefing. (Oral Argument, 1:23:34)

• An amicus curiae brief and a letter were filed; they are not summarized here.