The Texas Court of Appeals has granted a writ of mandamus against the City of Austin's ordinance that limits marijuana enforcement. This decision affects local law enforcement and the city's approach to marijuana-related offenses. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to appellate court mandates.
The case, known as In Re State of Texas, was filed on July 30, 2026, under docket number 15-26-00125-CV. The court's ruling highlights a significant conflict between state law and local ordinances regarding marijuana enforcement.
Background
The State of Texas initiated this case against the City of Austin regarding an ordinance titled “Elimination of Marijuana Enforcement.” This ordinance includes three sections that address citations, arrests for marijuana offenses, and the expenditure of city funds for THC testing. The dispute arose when the State sought a temporary injunction to prevent the enforcement of this ordinance, which the trial court initially denied.
In a previous ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court's denial and instructed it to issue a temporary injunction against the entire ordinance. The appellate court's earlier decision was aimed at preserving the status quo while the case proceeded to trial. However, upon remand, the trial court only issued a temporary injunction against two of the three sections of the ordinance, leading the State to seek further relief from the appellate court.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the State, granting the writ of mandamus. The court emphasized that the trial court had a mandatory duty to enforce the appellate court's previous judgment. The ruling stated, “When the trial court clerk receives the mandate, the appellate court’s judgment must be enforced.” The court highlighted that the trial court's failure to enjoin Section 16-1-3 of the ordinance was inconsistent with its earlier directive.
The court's opinion further clarified that the State should not be required to pursue additional appeals for relief already granted. The ruling indicated that the trial court must comply with the appellate court's earlier instructions to issue a temporary injunction against the entire ordinance pending a final trial. The panel included Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for local law enforcement in Austin and potentially other cities in Texas. It reinforces the authority of the state over local ordinances concerning marijuana enforcement. The decision also sets a precedent that emphasizes the necessity for trial courts to comply with appellate court mandates fully.
By granting the writ of mandamus, the Texas Court of Appeals has ensured that the enforcement of the ordinance will be temporarily halted until a final trial can determine its legality. This outcome may affect how local governments approach marijuana laws and enforcement in the future.
What's Next
The trial court is now required to issue a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the entire ordinance as directed by the appellate court. It remains to be seen whether the City of Austin will appeal this decision or if there are related cases pending that could impact this ruling.