Texas Supreme Court

In re The State of Texas

No. 24-0813                       9/26/24

Issue:

Does Texas law entitle citizens to carry handguns to the State Fair despite the State Fair of Texas, a private entity, enacting a policy excluding patrons from carrying handguns on State Fair grounds?

Holding:

No. The Supreme Court denied the State’s emergency motion for temporary relief without written opinion.

Concurrence:

Because the Attorney General’s Office “takes no position on whether the State Fair of Texas, a private entity, has the legal authority to exclude patrons carrying handguns from the Fair. … [t]his Court cannot possibly order the State Fair to allow handguns to be carried at this year’s Fair when the party seeking that relief does not even argue that Texas law obligates the Fair to do so” (emphasis in original). “Our job … is to decide whether Texas law allowed the State Fair to make the decision for itself. The State declines to take a position on that essential question but nevertheless asks this Court for an injunction overriding the State Fair’s decision. It should also go without saying that our answer, for now, must be no.” Read concurrence.

Commentary:

This decision is not about whether an attendee at the Texas State Fair could be prosecuted for a crime. It is not clear whether the State Fair is an “amusement park,” for purposes of §46.03 of the Penal Code, as the definition of “amusement park” is very specific. It is possible that an attendee with a handgun could be subject to prosecution for criminal trespass under §30.05 or §30.06, but prosecution of a handgun-holder is very difficult under those statutes. This decision is solely about whether the Texas State Fair can be sued by the Attorney General for prohibiting handguns on the fairgrounds. In that respect, the statutory construction of §411.209 of the Government Code is fairly easy. The statute clearly only applies to “state agencies” and “political subdivisions.” The concurring opinion makes it clear that the Texas State Fair is a private entity.

Note that the same legislation from 2015 that enacted §411.209 to empower the Attorney General to sue local entities in this manner also generated a flurry of litigation over weapons in courthouses. There was never a clear resolution of that legal issue, but an uneasy détente seems to have taken hold in most counties and those conflicts faded. However, this State Fair kerfuffle is certain to result in proposed legislation in 2025 to limit the property rights of non-profit entities to bar certain weapons from their premises, and that discussion is also likely to re-open the debate about allowing firearms and handguns throughout courthouses, so prepare accordingly.

Texas Attorney General Opinion

KP-0474                              10/1/24

Issue:

May a member of the board of managers of the Nueces County Hospital District simultaneously serve as a member of the board of directors of the Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority?

Conclusion:

“Even assuming the overlapping taxation authority of the entities does not implicate conflicting-loyalties incompatibility, a court would likely conclude that the entities’ overlapping functions, contract authority, and powers of eminent domain in overlapping territory are all factors under the conflicting-loyalties analysis that prohibit an individual from simultaneously serving on both boards.” Read opinion.