Relating to the subject matter jurisdiction of the criminal trial courts of this state.
Summary
SB 1220 amends the Texas Government Code to add a new provision stating that, unless another law expressly says otherwise, a person does not have to exhaust civil remedies, including administrative remedies, before a criminal trial court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a criminal action. In practical terms, the bill clarifies that the existence of unresolved civil or administrative processes will not by itself block a criminal case from being heard in court if that court would otherwise have jurisdiction under existing law.
The bill applies to criminal actions already pending as well as those filed on or after its effective date. It is framed as a jurisdictional clarification rather than a substantive change to criminal offenses or penalties, and it is effective immediately because it received the necessary legislative votes. The measure passed the Senate 26-4 and the House 127-10, indicating broad bipartisan support.
Impact
SB 1220 affects Chapter 23 of the Government Code by creating Section 23.002 and establishing a default rule for criminal trial court jurisdiction. It limits arguments that civil or administrative exhaustion is a prerequisite to criminal jurisdiction, unless another statute expressly imposes such a requirement. The bill therefore may streamline criminal prosecutions and reduce procedural challenges based on pending civil or administrative remedies, while preserving any specific exhaustion requirements found elsewhere in law.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around SB 1220 appears strongly favorable. The bill cleared both chambers with large margins, and the recorded votes suggest little organized opposition. Its passage through the State Affairs committees and final votes indicate that legislators generally viewed it as a clarifying, noncontroversial procedural measure.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s effect on the relationship between criminal proceedings and civil or administrative processes. Supporters likely favored removing a procedural barrier that could delay criminal cases, while any opponents may have been concerned about allowing criminal courts to proceed before related civil or administrative matters are resolved. However, the narrow recorded opposition suggests that any disagreement was limited and did not center on a major policy divide.
Expands the civil jurisdiction of county courts to matters of up to fifty thousand dollars and district courts to matters of up to thirty-five thousand dollars.
Expands the civil jurisdiction of county courts to matters of up to fifty thousand dollars and district courts to matters of up to thirty-five thousand dollars.