This article provides an update for local lawyers on the new Fifteenth Court of Appeals.
Historical Foundation
The creation of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals marks a milestone in Texas’ judicial evolution. The foundations of our appellate system date back to 1891 when a constitutional amendment established the Texas Supreme Court as the highest court for civil matters and invited the Texas Legislature to establish any intermediate appellate courts for civil appeals.1 This landmark change introduced a system where Texas would be “divided into courts of appeals districts,” and each of the courts in those districts would be made up of just three justices.2
The first of these three-justice appellate courts with district-wide jurisdiction that was created by the Texas Legislature is none other than the appropriately named First Court of Appeals. It was established in 1892, the same year as our Austin-based “Third” Court of Appeals. The last of the lineage was the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which was established in 1967, 75 years later. By 1981, the courts were authorized to increase the number of justices to more than three each.3 And as of 1984, Texas has maintained 80 justices across its 14 courts of appeals.
Then there was a unique entrant on the field. After some local debate and even a constitutional challenge,4 the Fifteenth Court of Appeals began operations six months ago, in September 2024.
Appellate Jurisdiction
In addition to creating a new appellate court for the first time in a half-century, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has a distinctive and expansive jurisdictional mandate. Rather than having jurisdiction within a particular judicial district, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has statewide jurisdiction.5
This statewide jurisdiction involves exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the newly created Texas Business Court, as well as appeals over state-related cases. Those state-related cases are matters brought by or against the State, including the University of Texas, and matters challenging the constitutionality of a state statute. All that to say, the Fifteenth had cases on day one.
Judicial Composition
The Court is currently composed of three experienced and distinguished justices: Chief Justice Scott Brister, who has served on four other trial and appellate courts in the State for 20 years, including the Texas Supreme Court; Justice Scott Field, a former trial court judge in Williamson County and former Third Court of Appeals justice; and Justice April Farris, a former First Court of Appeals justice and Assistant Solicitor General.
After September 1, 2027, two more spots will open on the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.6 Subsequently, justices will be elected to six-year terms through statewide elections, as with the other courts of appeals.
Inaugural Oral Arguments
I attended the Court’s first oral arguments on October 30, 2024, in the Court of Criminal Appeals (a stone’s throw from the Capitol). The Court was prepared, engaged, with questions that offered a small glimpse into its docket and makeup:
In re Google, LLC, No. 15-24-00087-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2025)
This case involved the household name’s petitions for writ of mandamus complaining that two trial courts abused their discretion by failing to compel the deposition of the State of Texas in enforcement actions against Google regarding use of consumer biometric data. The State argued that it was not an “entity” or “organization” within the applicable procedural rules subject to a corporate representative deposition, at least in part because it cannot command the appearance of an independent agency.
Four opinions were rendered on January 16, 2025, with two granting in part and denying in part (Cause Nos. 15-24-00087-CV, 15-24-00090-CV) and two dissenting (same) (Brister, C.J.). The Chief would deny relief, but the majority held “[b]ecause Google is entitled to depose the State of Texas, we grant relief in part in both proceedings to allow a deposition of the State to go forward, while reserving for the respective trial courts to decide the scope and parameters of those depositions.”
Department of Public Safety v. Texas Tribune, No. 15-24-00010-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 18, 2024)
This case involved a public information request by a consortium of newspapers seeking access to records related to the Uvalde shooting, where DPS withheld nearly three terabytes of information from disclosure. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit for release, which the trial court granted, shortly after a district attorney filed a plea in intervention favoring DPS’s position. The case was transferred from the Third Court and later submitted to the Fifteenth Court on oral argument. DPS argued for reversal of summary judgment based on its invocation of, and the newspaper’s alleged failure to rebut evidence of, the law enforcement privilege. There was post-submission letter briefing, but no decision as of last month.
Crowley Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Stoneham, No. 15-24-00051-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 19, 2024)
This was another case touching on the unfortunate issue of school violence, in this case where a hearing examiner had revoked an educator’s teaching license, but the Commissioner had reversed. Counsel for the teacher explained, because the Commissioner concluded that the hearing examiner was “arbitrary and capricious” by failing to apply the relevant educatory immunity factors, the Commissioner properly substituted in his own judgment. The Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, affirming the trial court’s judgment with the exception of the attorney fee award. The attorney fee award was an abuse of discretion under Roohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare LLP because it was based on an attorney affidavit that did not include billing records such as the hours worked and tasks performed.
Six-Month Statistics
In its inaugural months and at the time of submission of this article for publication, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has released opinions and orders on 23 separate dates with a total of 45 civil causes decided and 16 civil orders rendered.
Notable, too, is that at least 26 of these decisions involved cases originating from Travis County, underscoring the Court’s substantial engagement with local legal matters formerly taken up by the Third.
We look forward to studying additional developments with the Court and its jurisprudence.
Disclaimer: I have spoken and written on the Fifteenth Court of Appeals since before its inception. I used notes from that activity as inputs into Claude.ai to produce a first draft of the above output, which was checked line by line by me for accuracy and readability. All assertions made are within my personal experience and understanding. For commentary on how AI may disrupt the legal profession for the better and the worse, please look out for future articles from me.
ENDNOTES
1 Tex. Const. art. V § 1 (1891).
2 Id. § 6 (1891).
3 Id. § 6 (1978).
4 In re Dallas County, 697 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2024).
5 Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.201(p).
6 Id. § 22.216(n-1)–(n-2).
