Texas Senate Bill SB 311

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 11/12/24
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/26/25
• Voted on by Senate: 4/10/25
• Out of House Committee: 5/19/25

Caption

Relating to the writ power of the Texas Supreme Court.

Summary

SB 311 narrows the Texas Supreme Court’s writ authority by revising Government Code Section 22.002(a). Under current law, the court or a justice of the court may issue certain extraordinary writs—such as mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and procedendo—against a broad list of officials and judges. The bill removes that broader list from the statute and leaves the court’s writ power intact generally, but expressly bars the Supreme Court or a justice from issuing a writ against the governor. It also removes the specific statutory references to the court of criminal appeals and its judges from the exception language, changing the structure of the provision governing who may be targeted by these writs. The bill applies prospectively only. Any writ application filed in the Texas Supreme Court on or after September 1, 2025, would be governed by the new law, while applications filed before that date would continue under prior law. This means the bill would alter the procedural and jurisdictional framework for extraordinary writ practice in the state’s highest court without retroactively affecting pending filings. The available voting history suggests the bill advanced with clear support in the Senate, passing second and third readings by margins of 23-7 and 24-6, respectively. It later received a House committee report and was sent to Calendars, indicating continued legislative movement. No committee transcript is available, so the discussion record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margins indicate the measure was generally favored by a majority while still drawing meaningful opposition. The main point of contention appears to be the scope of the Texas Supreme Court’s authority over high-level state officials and other courts. Supporters likely view the bill as a clarification or limitation on extraordinary judicial power, while opponents may see it as reducing judicial oversight or altering established remedies against state actors. Because the bill specifically addresses writs against the governor and changes language involving the court of criminal appeals, it implicates separation-of-powers concerns and the balance between judicial review and executive or judicial immunity.

Impact

SB 311 amends Section 22.002(a) of the Government Code to change the Texas Supreme Court’s authority to issue writs of procedendo, certiorari, quo warranto, and mandamus. The bill removes the prior statutory list of officials and judges against whom writs could be issued and expressly prohibits writs against the governor, while also deleting references to the court of criminal appeals and its judges from the exception language. The practical effect is to narrow and reorganize the court’s writ power in state law, affecting litigants seeking extraordinary relief and the officials who may be subject to such proceedings.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had generally favorable momentum in the Legislature, as reflected by its passage in the Senate on strong but not unanimous votes and its subsequent advancement in the House process. The vote totals suggest majority support with a notable minority in opposition. With no committee transcript available, the public record here shows support for moving the bill forward but also enough resistance to indicate the issue was not entirely uncontested.

Contention

The likely controversy centers on whether the Texas Supreme Court should retain broad authority to issue extraordinary writs against top state officials and other judicial officers. Opponents may object to limiting judicial remedies or to the special protection afforded to the governor, while supporters may argue the bill clarifies boundaries and preserves separation of powers. The deletion of references to the court of criminal appeals may also raise concerns about how the bill affects inter-court oversight and the availability of relief in unusual cases.