Texas Supreme Court Revives Case Over Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

COLLEGE STATION, Texas — A ruling from the Supreme Court of Texas has reopened a case that challenges how cities enforce rules on people who live just outside their limits. The case could shape how cities across Texas use extraterritorial jurisdictions, or ETJs.

The court issued its opinion Friday, reviving a lawsuit filed in 2022 by two Brazos County residents, Shana Elliott and Lawrence Kalke. Although they live outside the official boundary of College Station, they are within the city’s ETJ — a buffer zone where cities can apply certain rules, even though the people there cannot vote in city elections or receive city services.

Elliott and Kalke argue that this setup violates the Texas Constitution’s promise of a republican form of government. Their lawsuit is backed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

ETJ Law Creates New Exit Option

During the legal battle, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 2038 in 2023. The law allows residents in an ETJ to file a petition asking to leave. If the petition is valid, the city must release the property. The City of College Station, however, has refused several such petitions and argues that the new law is unconstitutional.

In response to Elliott and Kalke’s lawsuit, the city claimed no ordinances had been enforced yet and that the issue was political, not legal. Both the trial court and an appeals court agreed and dismissed the case. But the state Supreme Court disagreed and sent it back to the lower court.

Justice John Devine wrote in the majority opinion that while local governments have authority to regulate for public welfare, the state legislature still holds the ultimate power. “In our republican form of government, the legislature retains the power to bring local government to heel,” he wrote.

Cities Push Back Against State Authority

The City of College Station has joined a separate lawsuit brought by Grand Prairie, with support from the Texas Municipal League, that challenges SB 2038 directly. Despite this, the Texas Supreme Court signaled its support for the new law, calling the city's consent “not required” when residents file a valid petition for release.

Justice James Sullivan partly disagreed with the majority, arguing that the case should continue even if Elliott and Kalke do not petition the city. He also cast doubt on the city’s legal fight against the new law, calling it “dubious.”

“Maybe the city will win that case, or lose it slowly? Nobody knows right now,” Sullivan wrote.

Political and Legal Tensions Continue

Robert Henneke, general counsel for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, called the decision a win for the plaintiffs. He said the ruling keeps their constitutional claim alive and upholds the legal force of SB 2038.

Senator Paul Bettencourt, the bill’s author, praised the court’s action. “SB 2038 was a law passed by the legislature and trumps the city acting like a sanctuary city,” he said.

As the case returns to trial court, both sides remain locked in a wider battle over local power and state oversight. Justice Sullivan offered final advice: “Release is a matter of paperwork, not permission.”