After refusing to sell “surplus property” back to its former owner, the Texas Department of Transportation is now before the Supreme Court in a case that could reshape the state’s eminent domain policy.
“Eminent domain” is the government’s power to take private property for public use, provided “just compensation” is given to the owner. Texas law outlines specific procedures for such acquisitions and—relevant to this case—grants limited rights to repurchase the property if it becomes unnecessary for public use.
Facts of the Case
According to court records, in 2013, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) sent an offer to Joyce Hutcherson, Rudolph Pusok, and Jimmie Pusok—the owners of 19502 Mueschke Road in Tomball—to purchase their property. TxDOT planned to construct a new road along the Grand Parkway (State Highway 99).
After receiving pushback from the landowners, the state filed an eminent domain lawsuit in 2014 to acquire the property. The suit was dismissed when the owners ultimately agreed to sell the property at $1.05 per square foot.
Years later, TxDOT stated in an email that approximately 20,000 square feet of the subject property constituted “surplus land,” as the decision to reroute Mueschke Road made it no longer necessary for public use. When the landowners—now represented by JRJ Pusok Holdings (Pusok)—sought to buy it back, TxDOT denied the request.
The Lawsuit
Pusok then sued both the State of Texas and Kyle Madsen, director of TxDOT’s Right of Way Division, claiming a right to repurchase under the Texas Property Code.
The code states: “A person from whom a real property interest is acquired by an entity through eminent domain for a public use … is entitled to repurchase the property as provided by this subchapter if … the property becomes unnecessary for the public use for which the property was acquired.”
The State argues the property was purchased from a settlement—even though the process began with the threat of eminent domain—rather than a final judgment in an eminent domain proceeding. According to the State’s logic, “the repurchase statutes therefore do not apply.”
Pusok refutes this logic, asserting that “all that is required for a property to be acquired ‘through eminent domain’ is a transfer of land in exchange for compensation.”
Another argument by the State is that Pusok sought to recover only a portion of the property, while the repurchase statutes allegedly require any repurchase to cover the entire parcel.
Such interpretations of the statutes “disregard the Legislature’s intent and grant the State an improper advantage by allowing it to engage in speculative condemnations and unfairly profit from its citizens,” argues Pusok.
Separate from the merits of the case is the State’s claim of sovereign immunity, which it argues “is presumed anytime a plaintiff files suit to control state action.”
“The repurchase statutes do not implicitly waive immunity,” argues the State.
The Harris County civil court ruled in favor of the State, and Pusok appealed to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, which reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the Chapter 21 repurchase claim. The State appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
The Court agreed to review the case on June 17, 2025.
If the Court sides with Pusok, it could force Texas to return unused land to former owners who seek to repurchase it. If not, officials may retain the power to keep or resell surplus land acquired under threat of condemnation.
TxDOT spokesperson Ryan LaFontaine told Texas Scorecard that “TxDOT doesn’t comment on pending litigation.”
Pusok’s attorneys did not respond to Texas Scorecard’s request for comment in time for publication.
