State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Gina Ortiz Jones, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio
This text of State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Gina Ortiz Jones, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio (State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Gina Ortiz Jones, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ACCEPTED 15-25-00093-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/19/2025 5:04 PM NO. 15-25-00093-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ______________________________________________ CLERK FILED IN IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/19/2025 5:04:10 PM ______________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; GINA ORTIZ JONES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; ERIK WALSH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 407TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, BEXAR COUNTY CAUSE NO. 2025CI07833 _________________________________________________
APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT __________________________________________________
SCOTT, DOUGLASS CITY OF SAN ANTONIO & McCONNICO LLP Office of the City Attorney Kennon L. Wooten Litigation Division State Bar No. 24046624 Deborah Lynne Klein kwooten@scottdoug.com Deputy City Attorney Lauren Ditty State Bar No. 11556750 State Bar No. 24116290 deborah.klein@sanantonio.gov lditty@scottdoug.com 203 S. St. Mary’s St., 2nd Floor 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Austin, Texas 78701-2589 (210) 207-8940—Telephone (512) 495-6300—Telephone (210) 207-4357—Facsimile (512) 495-6399—Facsimile
1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Appellees—the City of San Antonio; Gina Ortiz Jones, in her official capacity
as Mayor of the City of San Antonio;1 and Erik Walsh, in his official capacity as
City Manager of the City of San Antonio (collectively, “the City”)—file this
Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot and, in support, show as follows.
1. On April 7, 2025, the State of Texas (“State”) filed a Petition and
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief. In it, the State
claimed that the City’s allocation of money to a Reproductive Justice Fund (“Fund”)
violated the Gift Clause of the Texas Constitution. CR8-10.2 The alleged Gift Clause
violation is premised on the State’s assertion that the City would spend money
allocated to the Fund on “out-of-state abortions[,]” CR8, which was based on an
ordinance that authorized an “expedited procurement” process “for downstream
services to support reproductive and sexual healthcare services which may include
out of State travel[.]” C90. The State sought a declaration that the City was “violating
the state constitution’s gift clause by spending taxpayer money on support for out-
of-state abortions, including travel for out-of-state abortions[,]” as well as temporary
1 When the underlying proceeding was filed in the district court, Ron Nirenberg was the Mayor of the City of San Antonio and, in that capacity, was named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Gina Ortiz Jones was elected as the Mayor of the City of San Antonio on June 7, 2025 and was sworn into office on June 18, 2025. Accordingly, Mayor Jones is substituted as a party to this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(a) (addressing automatic substitution of public officer’s successor). 2 In this filing, “CR” is used to refer to the one-volume Clerk’s Record. 2 and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit “allocation and expenditure of taxpayer
dollars for support for out-of-state abortions, including out-of-state travel.” CR13.
2. On April 24, 2025, the City filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction based on
ripeness. The City asserted, in pertinent part, that the City had not entered a contract
with any organization related to the Fund or released any of the Fund, the City could
not do so until after the City Council voted to authorize one or more contracts with
organizations through a separate ordinance, the vote was not expected to occur until
the end of June 2025, and the vote might not result in execution of contracts with
organizations for assistance with travel out of state for legal abortion care. CR79-85.
3. On May 16, 2025, the trial court granted the Plea to the Jurisdiction and
dismissed the case without prejudice. CR542.
4. On May 20, 2025, the State filed its Notice of Appeal. CR547. The
State’s brief on the merits in this appeal is due on September 19, 2025.
5. Effective September 1, 2025, pursuant to Senate Bill 33 passed in the
89th Regular Session of the Legislature, the Texas Government Code was amended
such that, as a general rule, “a governmental entity may not enter into a taxpayer
resource transaction or appropriate or spend money to provide to any person
logistical support for the express purpose of assisting a woman with procuring an
abortion or the services of an abortion provider.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 2273.0031(a).
“Logistical support” is defined to “include[ ] providing money for: (1) child care;
3 (2) travel or any form of transportation to or from an abortion provider; (3) lodging;
(4) food or food preparation; (5) counseling that encourages a woman to have an
abortion; and (6) any other service that facilitates the provision of an abortion.” Id.
6. The City has always intended that the Fund comply with the law in all
respects. To that end, considering the above-referenced change in the law, the City
will not vote to allocate any part of the Fund to support out-of-state travel for
abortions. Thus, there is no longer a live controversy to resolve in this proceeding.
7. In sum, this appeal is moot. The City will honor and comply with the
above-referenced change in the law and, therefore, will not allocate any part of the
Fund in the manner the State sought to preclude in the underlying proceeding. See,
e.g., Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs. v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc., 717
S.W.3d 854, 863 (Tex. 2025) (“[T]here are no exceptions to the fundamental
constitutional requirement that courts may reach the merits of only live disputes.”);
Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs. v. N.J., 644 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. 2022)
(“A case is moot when a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties
or when the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully requests that this Court
dismiss the appeal as moot.
4 Respectfully submitted,
SCOTT DOUGLASS & McCONNICO LLP 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701-2589 (512) 495-6300 (512) 495-6399 Fax
By: /s/ Kennon L. Wooten Kennon L. Wooten State Bar No. 24046624 kwooten@scottdoug.com Lauren Ditty State Bar No. 24116290 lditty@scottdoug.com
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO Office of the City Attorney Litigation Division International Center 203 S. St. Mary’s St., 2nd Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 207-8940 (210) 207-4357 Fax Deborah Lynne Klein Deputy City Attorney State Bar No. 11556750 deborah.klein@sanantonio.gov
Attorneys for Appellees
5 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 10.1(a)(5), that I contacted counsel for the State, Nathaniel Plemons, and
he stated that the State is unopposed to the relief requested in the foregoing Motion
to Dismiss Appeal as Moot.
/s/ Kennon L. Wooten Kennon L. Wooten
6 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Gina Ortiz Jones, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-texas-v-city-of-san-antonio-gina-ortiz-jones-in-her-official-texapp-2025.