The Texas Court of Appeals recently upheld a ruling that dismissed claims made by Kristen Plaisance against Montgomery County and the Attorney General of Texas. This decision, issued on October 29, 2026, is significant as it reinforces the principles of governmental immunity in Texas law. The ruling affects how individuals can challenge governmental actions and the extent to which they can seek redress in court.

The case began when Plaisance intervened in a lawsuit involving Hart InterCivic, Inc., which had filed against Montgomery County and the Attorney General to avoid complying with a Public Information Act request made by Plaisance. The court's ruling emphasizes the limitations placed on individuals when attempting to sue government entities.

Background

Kristen Plaisance filed a Public Information Act request in April 2024, seeking access to a database of votes cast in the most recent election. This database was maintained by Hart InterCivic, Inc., a company that provides voting machines and software to Montgomery County. However, the County declined to disclose the database and sought a ruling from the Attorney General, which ultimately ruled that the file should be disclosed.

In September 2025, Plaisance intervened in the ongoing lawsuit between Hart InterCivic and Montgomery County, asserting her right to access the information. She also filed counterclaims against the County and the Attorney General, alleging breach of contract and violations of her constitutional rights. However, both the County and the Attorney General filed pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing that Plaisance lacked standing and did not adequately plead a waiver of governmental immunity.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Montgomery County and the Attorney General, affirming the lower court's dismissal of Plaisance's counterclaims. The court stated, "We affirm the trial court’s rulings dismissing her counterclaims against the County and the Attorney General of Texas for want of jurisdiction." The opinion was authored by Chief Justice Scott A. Brister, along with Justices Field and Farris.

The court noted that Plaisance did not dispute the trial court's application of the law regarding standing or immunity. Instead, she argued that the Texas Constitution prohibits the application of these doctrines to dismiss claims without addressing the merits. However, the court pointed out that both standing and governmental immunity are rooted in constitutional limitations on the power of courts to decide certain disputes.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for individuals seeking to challenge governmental actions in Texas. By upholding the dismissal based on governmental immunity, the court reinforced the idea that government entities are often shielded from lawsuits unless there is a clear waiver of that immunity. This decision may discourage individuals from pursuing claims against government entities, as the barriers to doing so remain high.

The ruling also serves as a reminder of the limitations placed on the courts in Texas. The court emphasized that it is bound by the decisions of the Texas Supreme Court, which has consistently upheld the doctrines of standing and governmental immunity. This could set a precedent for future cases involving similar claims against government entities, making it more difficult for individuals to seek redress in court.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Plaisance plans to appeal this ruling. However, given the nature of the case, it is possible that similar issues may arise in future cases involving governmental immunity and public information requests in Texas.