in Re the State of Texas ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •           Supreme Court of Texas
    ══════════
    No. 21-0873
    ══════════
    In re State,
    Relator
    ═══════════════════════════════════════
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
    ═══════════════════════════════════════
    PER CURIAM
    Today we stay enforcement of San Antonio Independent School
    District’s policy requiring that all its employees be vaccinated for
    COVID-19 by October 15. We grant this relief on our own authority
    under Rule 52.10(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure while we
    consider the State’s petition for writ of mandamus. We express no view
    on the merits of the State’s claims.
    This case, like those regarding local governmental entities’
    authority to mandate the wearing of masks, challenges the legality of
    the Governor’s orders under the Texas Disaster Act. We have not yet
    had the opportunity to consider the merits of these challenges. Our role
    has been to issue orders preserving the status quo. In the case of local
    governmental entities seeking to impose new mask mandates, we stayed
    temporary-relief orders permitting those mandates. In re Greg Abbott,
    No. 21-0686; In re Greg Abbott, No. 21-0687. When a court of appeals
    exercised its authority under Rule 29.3 to reinstate a temporary
    injunction permitting mask mandates, we stayed its order. In re Greg
    Abbott, No. 21-0720.
    Regarding vaccine mandates, the Governor first sought to ensure
    that “no governmental entity can compel any individual to receive a
    COVID-19 vaccine administered under an emergency use authorization”
    in Executive Order GA-35, issued April 5, 2021. The School District
    issued its vaccine mandate on August 16, and the State promptly filed
    suit. On August 20, the School District clarified that it would only
    mandate vaccines that receive full FDA approval. The FDA granted full
    approval to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on August 23, and the State
    nonsuited its claims against the School District. Two days later, the
    Governor issued Executive Order GA-39, barring governmental entities
    from compelling “any individual to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.” The
    underlying suit followed on September 9.
    The School District argues that its vaccine mandate is the status
    quo because it predates the Governor’s order banning all COVID-19
    vaccine mandates by a matter of days. It claims that the last actual,
    peaceable, non-contested status preceding the pending controversy was
    the five days between its clarification and GA-39’s issuance. However,
    the Governor asserted his authority to control vaccine mandates at the
    state level in April, months before the School District implemented its
    mandate. The status quo between the parties is not local control over
    vaccine mandates.
    2
    Our exercise of authority under Rule 52.10 to preserve the status
    quo is not a comment on the decision of the district court to deny the
    State’s request for a temporary injunction. To obtain a temporary
    injunction, a party must plead and prove (1) a cause of action against
    the defendant, (2) probable right to the relief sought, and (3) a probable,
    imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru v. Ford Motor
    Co., 
    84 S.W.3d 198
    , 204 (Tex. 2004). We are confident that the court of
    appeals will expeditiously consider the State’s appeal.
    The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before the
    Court.
    OPINION DELIVERED: October 14, 2021
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-0873

Filed Date: 10/14/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2021