# Paxton v. Garza

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 26-0110

**Paxton v. Garza, No. 26-0110, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court granted the Attorney General's petition for review and, on the parties' joint motion, vacated the Fifteenth Court of Appeals' judgment and dismissed the case as moot, ending a challenge to Attorney General rules requiring local prosecutors to report to his office.**

Practice areas: administrative law, criminal law

## Key issues

- The Court granted the Attorney General's petition for review and, on the parties' joint motion, vacated the Fifteenth Court of Appeals' judgment and dismissed the case as moot, ending a challenge to Attorney General rules requiring local prosecutors to report to his office.
- The vacated decision had held an agency's rulemaking power cannot be conferred by implication and affirmed a temporary injunction against the rules.

## Factual History
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 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 2).

## Procedural History
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 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 3; docket).

## Issues Presented
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 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 2).

## Legal Arguments
**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 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 2). **Respondents:** the Attorney General lacks rulemaking authority. Amicus letters were filed by Ron Beal of Waco (docket).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
The petition argued the court of appeals' rule that rulemaking power cannot be conferred by implication conflicts with this Court's precedent (Petition for Review, PDF p. 2).

## Practice Area Tags
administrative-law, criminal-law

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
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).

## Amicus Involvement
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.

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/26-0110. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.