Texas’ Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal as moot after the City of Elgin repealed its ordinance decriminalizing certain marijuana possession offenses. The lower court had reiterated its earlier position that state law preempts local decriminalization ordinances.
Despite vacating the lower court’s judgement, the Supreme Court of Texas left its written opinion intact, meaning it may be used to guide future judges and attorneys.
Background
In 2022, voters in the City of Elgin adopted an ordinance prohibiting Elgin police officers from issuing citations or making arrests for Class A and B misdemeanor possession of marijuana offenses.
The citizen-initiative petition was begun and pushed by “Decriminalize Elgin,” an unincorporated political action committee led by Courtenay Paris.
After the initiative had been published in the city’s Code of Ordinances, Texas’ Office of the Attorney General (OAG) sued Elgin and various city officials on the behalf of the State of Texas, alleging that the ordinance is preempted by state law.
Paris then sought to intervene in the suit as a defendant-intervenor, arguing that the City of Elgin had taken a legal position that was adverse to her interests, and instead aligned with those of the State.
She further argued that the State lacked standing to sue since it had sustained no legal injury, asserting that the ordinance had “never been applied or enforced,” nor was there a threat of future enforcement. To support both of her claims, she cited statements made by Elgin’s police chief and city manager.
Paris’ characterization of the city’s alignment with the OAG proved to be true, as Elgin and the OAG filed a joint motion for entry of a consent decree the following day, which asked the trial court to order that the ordinance is void.
The State moved to strike Paris’ petition for intervention, arguing that she lacked a legal interest in the suit. It further asserted that the State sustains an injury whenever a preempted, unlawful ordinance is adopted.
The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the State, striking down Paris’ petition and granting the OAG and Elgin’s consent decree. Paris appealed this decision to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin.
The Appeal
On appeal, the Fifteenth Court also ruled in favor of the State, affirming the trial court’s judgement striking down Paris’ petition. Chief Justice Scott Brister wrote the opinion.
Brister explained that Paris did not have a legal stake in the case that would justify her intervention.
“Absent a distinct injury, she is positioned no differently than any other concerned citizen who voted in favor of the Ordinance, and so she lacks standing to assert her standing and capacity challenges against the State,” he wrote.
Regarding Paris’ claims that the ordinance did not cause an injury to the State, Brister explained that the Fifteenth Court “recently observed in a similar suit filed by the State against a different city that the ‘State has an intrinsic right to enforce its own laws and, therefore, standing to bring’ its suit.”
Paris again appealed, this time to the Supreme Court of Texas.
However, while the appeal was pending, Elgin’s City Council formally repealed the ordinance in July 2026. This led the parties to file joint motions for the Court to dismiss the case as moot.
On September 18, the Supreme Court of Texas granted review. Without hearing oral argument or considering the merits, the Court vacated the judgement of the court of appeals and dismissed the case, in accordance with the joint motions.
In such circumstances, the lower court judgement is vacated to prevent a party from being unfairly bound by a judgment they can no longer appeal. However, the Court denied Paris’ request to also vacate the Fifteenth Court’s written opinion.
By leaving it published, future lawyers and judges may still use it as persuasive guidance.
Related Litigation
As Chief Justice Brister alluded to in his opinion, Elgin was not the first Texas city to attempt decriminalizing marijuana possession through a local ordinance.
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals had previously ordered lower courts to issue temporary injunctions blocking the cities of Austin and San Marcos from enforcing similar marijuana decriminalization ordinances.
The Texas Supreme Court ultimately denied both cities’ petitions for review, leaving in place the Fifteenth Court’s ruling that the state-level ban on marijuana explicitly preempts local decriminalization ordinances.
Denton, Killeen, and Dallas were also sued by the OAG for passing similar ordinances. Denton repealed its ordinance in May 2025, citing litigation costs and the Fifteenth Court’s Austin ruling, while Dallas subsequently agreed to a temporary injunction in its own case following the Austin decision.
Litigation against the City of Killeen is ongoing, as the OAG lawsuit has been consolidated with another suit brought by Bell County.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: tips@TexasScorecard.com.
