Julie Shodrok sought grand-juror names for the July-December 2020 term from Nueces County under the Texas Public Information Act. That request led to litigation resulting in a Third Court of Appeals judgment, Attorney General of Texas v. Mark Gonzalez, holding on January 11, 2024 that the names are not exempt from disclosure and must be released, with the court's mandate issuing February 5, 2025. In apparent anticipation of that mandate, the presiding judge of the 105th District Court (Nueces County) granted a motion by the District Attorney's Office to return the requested records to the court and seal them as "personnel information" under Rule of Judicial Administration 12.5(c), citing an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Shodrok sought mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals to compel compliance with its own prior mandate; that court denied relief. Shodrok then sought an original writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court against both the district judge and the Nueces County District Attorney (James D. Granberry, in his official capacity), which set the case for oral argument on February 10, 2027.
Relator (Julie Shodrok): The trial court's sealing order is void because it directly contravenes a final, binding appellate mandate that already resolved the disclosure question; a judge has no discretion to relitigate or nullify a superior court's mandate through a later order. The maneuver of transferring PIA-covered records to the judiciary and re-labeling them "judicial records" cannot be used to evade the Public Information Act's constitutional transparency foundations or the separation of powers, and a 2025 amendment to Government Code Section 22.002(a) removes any doubt about this Court's jurisdiction to grant mandamus here. Because the PIA provides no mechanism to challenge a post-mandate sealing order and further delay prejudices her statutory rights, only mandamus can vindicate her rights after exhausting lower-court remedies.
Real Party in Interest (James D. Granberry, District Attorney for Nueces County): The Supreme Court's mandamus jurisdiction over a sitting district attorney (as opposed to the judge) is doubtful in the first place, and mandamus in any event remains a discretionary, equitable remedy subject to principles that can justify denial even where the underlying legal question might favor the relator. The judiciary has inherent authority to protect what are now properly characterized as judicial records under its own administrative rules, separate and apart from the PIA framework that governed the records while they were in the District Attorney's possession.
Yes. The petition frames the case as implicating statewide transparency, the supremacy of appellate mandates over subsequent trial-court orders, and the constitutional separation of powers -- arguing that if a trial court can nullify a binding appellate PIA mandate simply by re-routing records through the judicial branch and sealing them, no PIA disclosure ruling in the state is truly final.
open-records, texas-constitution, civil-procedure
Original proceeding for writ of mandamus; Relator / Real Party in Interest (and Respondent, the presiding judge, in the judge's official capacity). Set for oral argument February 10, 2027. Not yet decided.
None
Every document below opens on the official Texas courts site (search.txcourts.gov) — nothing is hosted here.