Julie Shodrok made Public Information Act requests in 2020 and 2021 to the Nueces County District Attorney for the names of grand jurors in connection with two grand jury reports about Port Aransas officials, the Attorney General issued three open-records rulings requiring disclosure, and the District Attorney sued the Attorney General for a declaration allowing him to withhold the names.¹ On January 11, 2024 the Third Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and rendered judgment that the names are not exempt under the judiciary exclusion or as confidential under article 19A.104 and must be disclosed, this Court denied review on December 20, 2024, and the mandate issued February 5, 2025.² On February 3, 2025, two days before the mandate, the 105th District Court (Judge Pulcher) granted District Attorney James Granberry's motion to return the records to the court and seal them as "personnel information" under Rule of Judicial Administration 12.5(c), a motion that acknowledged the mandate was "scheduled to issue" and sought to put the records "beyond the power or ability" of his office to comply.³ The District Attorney answers that the judge, who was not a party to the earlier litigation, acted under inherent authority to protect grand jurors' "dignity, independence, and integrity" and that the records were no longer in his possession.⁴

Shodrok petitioned the Third Court of Appeals for mandamus on October 21, 2025, the Attorney General intervened in support of her on December 9, 2025, and on March 4, 2026 the court denied mandamus without opinion.¹ Shodrok filed her original petition in this Court on April 16, 2026 against the district judge and the District Attorney.² The Court set the case for oral argument on September 4, 2026 and ordered merits briefing.

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus against the 105th District Court and the Nueces County District Attorney after the Third Court of Appeals denied mandamus; argument set September 4, 2026. Oral argument: February 10, 2027.

• Shodrok:¹ whether the 105th District Court abused its discretion by sealing the names in contravention of the Third Court's mandate; whether the Third Court abused its discretion in denying mandamus; whether the Texas Constitution prohibits a governmental body from evading the Public Information Act and an appellate mandate by transferring records to the judiciary for sealing; and whether she lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.
• The District Attorney:² whether this Court has mandamus authority, whether it may reach a district attorney, and whether mandamus should issue as a discretionary equitable remedy.

Mandamus issues only on a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy, and the District Attorney stresses that the relator's burden is heavy and that the writ is discretionary and controlled by equitable principles.¹

Whether the sealing order is void and the Third Court should have enforced its mandate.

Julie Shodrok (Relator): A trial court "has no authority to interfere with the due enforcement of the judgment of a superior court," its duty after mandate is ministerial, and an order that contradicts a mandate is void, here one the District Attorney procured for the admitted purpose of defeating the mandate.¹ The trial court could not use Rule 12.5(c) to reclassify executive-branch records as judicial records, grand jurors are not employees so the "personnel information" exemption does not apply, and the Third Court abused its discretion in denying mandamus to enforce its own judgment.² In reply, she says every defense in the Response is a collateral attack on what the Third Court already decided.³

The District Attorney (Real Party in Interest): The proceeding does not involve a court refusing to comply with this Court's mandate, because the district court was not a party to the Public Information Act litigation, the Third Court lacked authority to mandamus a Nueces County judge, and the sealing order did not directly interfere with its judgment.⁴ The Rules of Judicial Administration let the court withhold "personnel information," a term that is not limited to employment.⁵

Constitutional and separation-of-powers arguments.

Julie Shodrok (Relator): The Public Information Act implements the constitutional principle that political power is inherent in the people, and the executive may not use the judiciary to nullify a statutory disclosure duty by transferring records for sealing.⁶

Whether the Court may reach the district attorney, and equity.

The District Attorney (Real Party in Interest): This Court lacks jurisdiction under Government Code section 22.002 to issue mandamus against a county or district officer other than a district judge.⁷ Mandamus should also be denied as an equitable matter because the policy of protecting citizens who serve as grand jurors outweighs a requester's interest in their names.⁸

Julie Shodrok (Relator): The 2025 amendment to section 22.002(a), effective September 1, 2025, authorizes mandamus against anyone but the governor, so the District Attorney is within the Court's writ power, and in any event the writ runs first against the district judge.⁹ She pursued lower-court mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals and says the Third Court has no power over a Nueces County judge while the Thirteenth Court has no stake in enforcing the Third Court's mandate.¹⁰

Shodrok argued that the case concerns the supremacy of appellate mandates and statewide transparency, that the PIA requires uniform statewide application, and that the District Attorney's conduct invites governmental bodies to evade the Act and appellate judgments by moving records to a court for sealing.¹

None noted