In re Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and John Silovsky, In His Official Capacity as Wildlife Division Director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (No. 05-24-00582-CV; May 23, 2024) arose from a commercial deer breeder’s lawsuit to enjoing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department from enforcing a deer depopulation order to mitigate Chronic Wasting Disease in the landowner’s herd. The trial court granted a temporary injunction and denied TPWD’s plea to the jurisdiction. TPWD sought interlocutory relief, which is currently pending. In the meantime, SCOTX issued a stay of the court of appeals’ temporary order preventing depopulation until the landowner’s appeal may be heard. That stay allowed TPWD to reschedule depopulation for May 13, 2024, but prior to that date the trial court issued a new TRO blocking the depopulation. TPWD responded by filing an emergency petition for writ of mandamus.
In an opinion by Justice Miskel, the court granted the petition and ordered the trial court to vacate its TI order. TPWD argued that the trial court’s order violated § 51.014(b), CPRC, which stays all proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of an appeal of certain types of interlocutory orders, including a denial of a plea to the jurisdiction [§ 51.014(a)(8)]. According to the plain text of the statute, Justice Miskel wrote, “the trial court clearly abused its discretion when it issued a TRO in violation of the stay.” This makes perfect sense since, if TPWD’s jurisdictional challenge is successful, the trial court didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction to do anything.
This is another good example of an intermediate court of appeals policing a trial court that, for whatever reason, had trouble reading the statute and applying it as written.
