For about 150 years Government Code § 41.006 has let the Attorney General obtain reports from county and district attorneys "relating to criminal matters and the interests of the state" at the times and in the form he directs; last year he adopted rules setting prosecutors' reporting obligations, 1 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 56.1-.10.¹

Travis County Attorney Delia Garza, Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot, and Fort Bend County District Attorney Brian Middleton, among others, sued; the trial court temporarily enjoined enforcement, and the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Paxton v. Garza (Dec. 30, 2025) affirmed, holding an agency's rulemaking power cannot be conferred by implication. The Attorney General petitioned for review February 20, 2026; the Court ordered a response, granted extensions, and on May 29, 2026, on a joint motion filed May 18, granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals' judgment, and dismissed the case as moot without argument under Tex. R. App. P. 56.2; the mandate issued June 22.¹

Petition for review from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, granted, and disposed of on a joint motion under Tex. R. App. P. 56.2 (docket).

Whether the Attorney General has authority, expressly or by implication, to adopt rules enforcing Section 41.006's reporting requirement, the question the petition raised and the Court did not decide.¹

Attorney General (Petitioner): the statute's grant of power to direct the time and form of reports expressly, or at least by fair implication, authorizes the rules, and the Fifteenth Court's contrary rule conflicts with this Court's precedent that rulemaking authority may be implied.¹

Respondents: the Attorney General lacks rulemaking authority. Amicus letters were filed by Ron Beal of Waco (docket).

The petition argued the court of appeals' rule that rulemaking power cannot be conferred by implication conflicts with this Court's precedent.¹

Two letters from Ron Beal of Waco, Texas were received (docket).

Disposition

Petition granted, court of appeals' judgment vacated, and the case dismissed as moot on the parties' joint motion.

Vote Breakdown

No separate writings noted.