On August 3, 2025, several dozen Texas House members left the State for the express purpose of preventing the House from functioning, which left it without the two-thirds quorum Article III, Section 10 requires; the redistricting legislation that precipitated the "quorum break" passed after they voluntarily returned two weeks later, a quorum was achieved on August 18, and the Governor signed the bill on August 29.¹ The State says the Speaker had issued warrants for the members' arrest and that they refused to attend the special session the Governor called.² The thirteen respondent members, all in the minority party, say they never stopped working for their constituents during the 14 days away and that they have worked continuously since returning.³

This is a consolidated original proceeding for writs of quo warranto in this Court, No. 25-0674 (In re Abbott, brought by the Governor) and No. 25-0687 (In re State of Texas), filed days after the members left.¹ The State filed its petition on August 8, 2025, and the Court asked for briefs on the merits; the State filed its brief August 20, the respondent members August 29, and the State replied September 4. The State's brief says the Court consolidated its case with the Governor's, so it need not decide whether the Governor has standing independently.² The Court denied the petitions on May 15, 2026, in an opinion by Chief Justice Blacklock, with Justice Sullivan concurring and Justice Hawkins not participating.³

Consolidated original proceedings (petitions for writ of quo warranto), denied May 15, 2026, in an opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Blacklock with a concurring opinion by Justice Sullivan.⁴

The State presents one issue: whether the respondents, who despite the issuance of warrants for their arrest refused to attend a special session called by the Governor and absented themselves from the State with the admitted intent of disrupting the Legislature, abandoned their offices as State Representatives.¹ Respondents contend instead that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief, and that if it has any, it should not exercise original jurisdiction without exigent circumstances.²

Whether to exercise original quo warranto jurisdiction is discretionary.¹ Respondents say the Court exercises it only when circumstances are urgent and facts are undisputed, and that proving abandonment requires "unequivocal evidence of the voluntary rejection or resignation of the office".²

Whether this Court has and should exercise original jurisdiction.

Relator (State): The Constitution and Government Code authorize direct quo warranto actions in this Court against "any officer of state government," which includes House members; the State is a proper relator through the Attorney General, and the extraordinary circumstances warrant original jurisdiction because the facts are undisputed and the question concerns how state government operates.¹

Respondents (House members): Original jurisdiction requires exigent circumstances, but quorum had been restored and the House was acting on attendance penalties; intent is a disputed fact question this Court cannot try, and any proper forum would be a district court.²

Whether quorum-breaking abandons or forfeits office.

Relator (State): Under the common law, an officer who relinquishes his office and refuses to attend loses it; by fleeing the State, respondents nullified the present members' authority to compel attendance and, if allowed, would create the "absolute supermajoritarian check" this Court rejected in In re Abbott (2021), so the Court should declare their offices vacant.³

Respondents (House members): As a matter of text and history, courts lack jurisdiction to expel legislators, and the State cites no common-law precedent doing so; legislative immunity, the political-question doctrine, and separation of powers confirm that result, and the evidence of abandonment is weak because they kept working and returned within 14 days.⁴

Relator (State), in reply: Respondents do not deny that their conduct upset the careful balance of Article III, Section 10, and if they are right then In re Abbott was wrong; the Court should reaffirm that holding by declaring their offices vacated.⁵

The State argued that the petition implicates the organization and operation of state government, a question of general public interest calling for speedy determination, and that the undisputed facts make it ripe for resolution.¹

• Thomas R. Phillips filed an amicus brief.
• League of Women Voters of Texas, Asian Texans for Justice, OCA-Greater Houston, UnidosUS, and the Texas State Conference of the NAACP filed an amicus brief.
• Denton County Democratic Club filed an amicus brief.
• Texas State Senators Carol Alvarado, Cesar Blanco, Molly Cook, Sarah Eckhardt, Roland Gutierrez, Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, Nathan Johnson, Jose Menendez, Borris Miles, Royce West, and Judith Zaffirini filed an amicus letter.
• Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino filed an amicus letter brief.

Holding

The Court declined to exercise its discretionary original jurisdiction over the quo warranto petitions, because the House's temporary inability to function was speedily resolved by the political mechanisms the Constitution envisions; it resolved neither whether any judicial remedy could ever be available in such circumstances nor any other question.¹

Reasoning

Separation of powers. The case asks executive officers to have judicial officers remove legislative officers, raising fundamental questions about the allocation of power among the branches, each of which the Constitution forbids to exercise the others' powers.²

Text. Article III, Section 10 lets a smaller number adjourn and "compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide," entrusting that power to the present members of each House, not the courts; expulsion likewise belongs to each House by two-thirds consent, and each House judges its members' qualifications.³

Political resolution. During the two weeks without a quorum, the House used its power, including by withholding financial resources from absent members, which barely scratched the surface of its authority but proved effective, and the Governor and other actors pressured the members to return, so a quorum was restored "without judicial intervention, by the interplay of political and practical forces".⁴ Courts reiterate their institutional reluctance to resolve disputes between coequal branches that those branches can resolve themselves and to enter contests of factional political power.⁵ If those remedies prove inadequate in a future case, the Court might consider whether any judicial remedy could ever be available.⁶

Concurrence (Justice Sullivan). He concurred because the crisis "passed too quickly for us to engage in factfinding that might've justified quo warranto relief," and offered preliminary thoughts on future cases.⁷ Texas imported the information in the nature of quo warranto, not the ancient writ, and this Court has been asked to exercise original quo warranto jurisdiction only three times, granting relief in none.⁸ He wrote that the Court would have to resolve disputed facts, such as abandonment, is structured as an appellate tribunal, and should stand ready to find facts next time; he noted open questions about whether quorum-breakers could demand a jury trial, but found no solid evidence either way.⁹ On who may bring such a case, he said history may allow a private relator but that standing and separation-of-powers concerns make it thorny, and that anyone other than the Attorney General should show a special interest, as the Governor did through his control of the special sessions.¹⁰ Because quorum breaks have recurred in 2003, 2021, and 2025, he wrote that the next quorum-breakers "had better be ready to pay us a visit," since the Court's original jurisdiction would let it inquire whether they abandoned their offices and, if so, remove them.¹¹

Disposition

Petitions for writ of quo warranto denied.¹²

Vote Breakdown

Chief Justice Blacklock delivered the opinion of the Court; Justice Sullivan filed a concurring opinion; Justice Hawkins did not participate in the decision.¹³