In June 2023 the Dallas City Council adopted two ordinances on short-term rentals (STRs), defined as a rentable unit occupied for fewer than 30 consecutive days. The "Zoning Ordinance" (Ordinance 32482) created a land-use category for short-term rental lodging and banned it in areas zoned for single-family residential use; the "Registration Ordinance" (Ordinance 32473) regulates the standards of operation of STRs and required registration.¹ The homeowners say undisputed evidence showed the Zoning Ordinance would eliminate about 95 percent of the more than 2,000 STRs in Dallas, after the City collected millions of dollars in hotel occupancy taxes from them and homeowners invested millions to buy and improve properties as STRs. The City says online platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo reintroduced the harms of transient housing into single-family neighborhoods and the ordinances allow STRs in appropriate districts while regulating their operation.²

The Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance and homeowners Sammy Aflalo, Vera Elkins, Danielle Lindsey and Denise Lowry sued for declaratory relief, asserting violations of the due course of law, retroactivity, takings and equal protection provisions of the Texas Constitution and two statutes. After an evidentiary hearing on December 1, 2023, the 95th District Court of Dallas County (Judge Monica Purdy) granted a temporary injunction against enforcement of both ordinances on December 6, 2023, a week before enforcement was to begin.¹ The Fifth Court of Appeals (Rodriguez, J. (ret.), joined by Smith and Garcia, JJ.) affirmed on due course of law grounds, reversing only as to one plaintiff who did not personally own an STR, after withdrawing and replacing its first opinion on rehearing. City of Dallas v. Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance, No. 05-23-01309-CV, 2025 WL 2022063 (Tex. App.⁠—Dallas July 18, 2025, pet. filed) (mem. op. on reh'g).² The City petitioned for review on October 16, 2025, the homeowners responded February 3, 2026, and the Court requested merits briefing, filed June 10 and August 28, 2026; the City's reply is due in October 2026.

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals, which affirmed in substantial part an interlocutory temporary injunction against enforcement of two municipal short-term rental ordinances. The Court has requested and received merits briefing; the City's reply brief is not yet on file, and the Court has not yet granted the petition.

The City presents:

1. that the courts below abused their discretion in entering and affirming the temporary injunction
2. that the court of appeals abused its discretion on due course of law grounds because it did not decide whether the homeowners have a vested property right in operating STRs in residential districts and because neither ordinance denies due course of law
3. that the trial court abused its discretion in finding a probable right to relief on retroactivity, takings, and equal protection
4. on the Zoning Enabling Act
5. on the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act¹

The homeowners frame the overarching question as whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction, which turns on whether they presented some evidence of each element of six claims, noting the City does not dispute irreparable injury.²

Petitioner (City of Dallas): The due course challenge fails because the ordinances do not implicate a constitutionally protected right: operating STRs in residential districts is not a vested property right. It also fails because the Zoning Ordinance is rationally related to legitimate government interests and is not unconstitutionally oppressive, and the Registration Ordinance is likewise rationally related and not oppressive. On the alternative grounds, the City argues operating STRs in residential districts is not a fundamental right for equal protection purposes, the ordinances do not unreasonably interfere with use and enjoyment so they are not a regulatory taking, they do not impair settled expectations and advance compelling interests for retroactivity purposes, and they do not violate the Zoning Enabling Act or the Regulatory Consistency Act. In reply it asks, at a minimum, that the Court modify the injunction so the Registration Ordinance may take effect.¹

Respondents (Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance, Sammy Aflalo, Vera Elkins, Danielle Lindsey, and Denise Lowry): The ordinances violate the due course clause because homeowners have a vested right to lease their property and the ordinances are oppressive and not rationally related to a legitimate interest. The Zoning Ordinance is also an unconstitutional retroactive law because owners had a settled right to operate STRs and the impairment is severe and widespread, an unconstitutional taking, a violation of equal protection, beyond the City's power under the Zoning Enabling Act, and preempted by the "Death Star Act." They emphasize the deferential interlocutory standard, that the lower courts decided only to preserve the status quo, that the City does not dispute irreparable injury, and that the trial court's ruling is supported by multiple alternative grounds.²

The City argues the case involves the extent to which cities may, consistent with the due course of law clause, balance the interests of residents and STR operators through local regulation, an important public question affecting more than these parties, and that the courts of appeals have reached divergent conclusions on the constitutional questions.¹ The homeowners respond that the case is a poor vehicle because it arises from a deferential interlocutory posture in which the merits were not resolved, that the Court has repeatedly denied petitions on similar STR issues in that posture, and that two other STR cases are pending in the courts of appeals on summary judgments.²

• Goldwater Institute (amicus brief, September 18, 2026)
• Neighborhood Coalition of Dallas (amicus brief, March 27, 2026)