During the contentious divorce of Andrew Hettinger and Kelly Hettinger (also known as Kelly Christina), Kelly says she learned that Small Business Administration CARES Act emergency loans had been obtained in her name: $174,000 in loans for SW Trading Group and 1 Main Closeouts, LLC, which she solely owned, and $269,000 for Produce IT, LLC and El Rojo Grande Real Estate Holdings, LLC, which she and Andrew jointly owned. Minns, the petitioner, says the loans were signed with her electronic signature without her authorization, that she hired him, a white-collar criminal defense lawyer, to limit her potential criminal liability and to sue the CPA who assisted with the loans, and that he did so by establishing she was an innocent spouse, returning the funds and cooperating with the federal government.¹ Andrew says he was the manager of the companies with authority to obtain the loans, that the loans were repaid, and that Minns and Kelly contacted the SBA again on August 16, 2023, three years after the first contact, a day before a post-divorce hearing and after Minns's engagement had ended, solely to repeat false statements that Andrew had committed identity theft and fraud.²

Andrew sued Minns and Kelly for defamation on November 30, 2023 in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County based on the August 16, 2023 statements to an SBA lender. On March 15, 2024, the trial court (Judge Noe Gonzalez) denied Minns's TCPA motion to dismiss. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Tijerina, C.J., joined by West and Fonseca, JJ.) affirmed the denial of both Minns's and Kelly's motions in a memorandum opinion, Hettinger v. Hettinger, Nos. 13-24-00176-CV and 13-24-00177-CV, 2025 WL 1702281 (Tex. App.⁠—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 18, 2025, pet. filed), and denied rehearing and en banc reconsideration in August 2025.¹ Minns petitioned for review on December 3, 2025, and Andrew responded March 18, 2026. The Court requested merits briefing; Minns filed July 29, 2026 and Andrew filed September 21, 2026, and Minns's reply is due November 5, 2026. Kelly's petition from the same decision is No. 25-0948.

Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals following an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss a defamation suit against a lawyer (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(12)). The Court requested and received merits briefing; the petitioner's reply is due November 5, 2026, and the Court has not yet granted the petition. A companion petition, No. 25-0948, challenges the same decision as to the lawyer's client.

1. Whether attorneys' communications to governmental authorities of alleged wrongful conduct, when seeking enforcement of the law for their clients, are an exercise of the right to petition under section 27.001(4) of the TCPA. 2. Whether attorneys' statements on their clients' behalf about fraudulent application for and use of government funds are made in connection with a matter of public concern implicating free speech under section 27.001(3). 3. Whether the court of appeals misapplied the exclusion for private economic dealings to hold Minns did not exercise his free-speech right when he assisted his client in reporting to the SBA that Andrew fraudulently obtained the loans. 4. Whether Minns established the affirmative defenses of attorney immunity and quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law.¹

Petitioner (Michael Louis Minns): The Court has never addressed the right to petition under sections 27.001(4)(B) or (C), and the court of appeals failed to apply the statutory right-to-petition framework, whose relevant inquiry is whether the communication is of a type that invites governmental review. Reports of potential fraud involving government funds are matters of public concern, and the court misapplied the private economic dealings exclusion. Minns also argues he established attorney immunity and quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law, that the issue will keep arising, and that the decision creates a chilling effect on attorneys representing clients before government agencies. In reply he argues Andrew waived his objections, that the statute requires no intent and no "public" interest for the right to petition, and that no formal "proceeding" is necessary.¹

Respondent (Andrew Hettinger): Minns presented no competent evidence showing by a preponderance that he was exercising the right to petition or free speech, so the TCPA does not apply. Even considering his affidavits, the right to petition and free speech were not implicated: the August 2023 contact came after years of silence, after the loans had been repaid, after Minns's engagement ended, and the day before a post-divorce hearing, so it was vindictive, not petitioning. If the TCPA applied, Andrew provided clear and specific evidence of a prima facie defamation per se claim, and no affirmative defense of attorney immunity or quasi-judicial immunity was established as a matter of law. He asks that the case be remanded for an award of attorney's fees.²

Minns argues the Court has never addressed the right to petition under sections 27.001(4)(B) or (C), that the Court should clarify the scope of the TCPA's free-speech protection for communications on matters of public concern, that the issue will recur, and that the decision chills attorneys.¹ Andrew responds that the opinion is fact-dependent and applies only to the particular facts, so it raises no question important to the state's jurisprudence.²

None