Jonathan Timothy Noyes v. the State of Texas for the Protection of Samantha Jo Voges

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: 24-0023
• Status: Published

Opinions

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 24-0023 ══════════

Jonathan Timothy Noyes, Petitioner,

v.

The State of Texas for the Protection of Samantha Jo Voges, Respondent

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas ═══════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

JUSTICE SULLIVAN filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Devine, Justice Young, and Justice Hawkins joined.

JUSTICE HAWKINS filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Young and Justice Sullivan joined.

Petitioner Jonathan Noyes argues that the permanent protective order issued against him, which prohibits Noyes from possessing any firearm for the remainder of his life, violates his fundamental rights to keep and bear arms under the United States and Texas Constitutions. The lifetime order issued after a bench hearing in which the trial court found reasonable grounds to believe that Noyes had engaged in criminal stalking. But just a few months after the court of appeals affirmed, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), which addressed the circumstances under which an individual may be disarmed and the permissible duration of that disarmament. The court of appeals did not have the benefit of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi when it confronted Noyes’s constitutional challenges, which we hold have been sufficiently preserved. Accordingly, and without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand the case to that court for further proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).

OPINION DELIVERED: May 15, 2026