Texas Senate Bill SB 987

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 1/29/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/17/25
• Voted on by Senate: 3/26/25
• Out of House Committee: 5/19/25

Caption

Relating to the subject matter jurisdiction of the criminal trial courts of this state over certain criminal actions.

Summary

SB 987 amends the Texas Government Code to clarify that a criminal trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not conditioned on first exhausting civil or administrative remedies. In practical terms, the bill says that if a trial court already has jurisdiction over a criminal action under other law, that jurisdiction is not defeated or delayed because related civil remedies have not been pursued first. The bill is narrowly focused on jurisdictional procedure rather than creating new crimes or changing criminal penalties. It applies to criminal actions commenced before, on, or after the effective date, and it takes effect September 1, 2025. By making the rule explicit in statute, the bill is intended to reduce arguments that a criminal case must wait for civil or administrative processes to finish before a court can hear it.

Impact

The bill amends Section 571.171, Government Code, by adding a new subsection that limits the reach of any exhaustion requirement in that section. It preserves criminal trial court jurisdiction where it otherwise exists and prevents civil or administrative exhaustion doctrines from being used as a prerequisite to criminal adjudication. The affected parties are criminal defendants, prosecutors, and trial courts, especially in cases where parallel civil, regulatory, or administrative proceedings may exist.

Sentiment

The available vote history suggests generally favorable support for the bill, with strong margins on procedural votes and final passage in the Senate, though not unanimous. The bill was later reported favorably as substituted in the House State Affairs process, indicating continued committee-level support. No committee transcript is available here, but the voting pattern points to broad agreement that the jurisdictional clarification was useful.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be whether criminal courts should ever be required to wait for civil or administrative remedies to be exhausted before proceeding. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a clarification that avoids unnecessary delay and preserves criminal court authority, while opponents may have been concerned about limiting exhaustion principles or allowing criminal cases to proceed before related noncriminal processes are complete. The relatively small number of dissenting votes suggests the disagreement was limited but present.