Texas Department of Family and Protective Services; Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Dfps Commissioner; Texas Health and Human Services; Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as Hhsc Executive Commissioner; Corrections Corporation of America; And the Geo Group, Inc. v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc.; Gloria Valenzuela; E.G.S., for Herself and as Next Friend for A.E.S.G.; F.D.G., for Herself and as Next Friend for N.R.C.D.; Y.E.M.A., for Herself and as Next Friend for A.S.A.

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 23-0192
══════════

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services;
Stephanie Muth, in her Official Capacity as DFPS Commissioner;
Texas Health and Human Services; Cecile Erwin Young, in her
Official Capacity as HHSC Executive Commissioner; Corrections
Corporation of America; and The GEO Group, Inc.,
Petitioners,
v.
Grassroots Leadership, Inc.; Gloria Valenzuela; E.G.S., for herself
and as next friend for A.E.S.G.; F.D.G., for herself and as next friend
for N.R.C.D.; Y.E.M.A., for herself and as next friend for A.S.A.,
Respondents

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

Argued October 31, 2024

JUSTICE YOUNG delivered the opinion of the Court.

Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Sullivan did not participate in
the decision.

We must decide whether Texas courts are constitutionally
authorized to adjudicate moot cases that raise questions of considerable
public importance. The court of appeals below invoked this so-called
“public-interest exception” and proceeded to resolve the case on its merits.
Under the text, structure, and history of our Constitution, however, the
court of appeals exceeded its authority. There is no such thing as a
public-interest exception to mootness in Texas.
This case stems from a Department of Family and Protective
Services rule that authorized state licenses for two residential facilities
at which the federal government has detained mothers and children after
their illegal entry into the United States. Under a prior federal consent
decree, such state licenses were necessary for more than very brief
detentions of immigrant children. A cadre of detained mothers, on
behalf of themselves and their minor children, together with Grassroots
Leadership, Inc., and a children’s day-care operator, challenged the
department’s authority under state law to adopt the rule. Their goal: to
prohibit the detention of children at the newly licensed facilities.
Long before their challenge to the rule reached the court of appeals,
however, the mothers and their children were all released from the
facilities. The court of appeals thus concluded that their claims were
moot. Ordinarily, that would lead to dismissal of the case. But due to its
application of “the public-interest exception” to mootness, the court
proceeded to address the merits and held the rule to be invalid under the
Administrative Procedure Act.
The court of appeals was correct to view the case as moot, and it
should have proceeded no further. Mootness, which refers to when a case
no longer presents a live controversy, is simply one branch of the larger
doctrine of justiciability. The justiciability requirements collectively
ensure that courts exercise only “[t]he judicial power of this State.” Tex.

2
Const. art. V, § 1. The judicial power of the Texas courts does not include
the rendition of advisory opinions. So unyielding is this principle that
only by separate constitutional authorization may this Court answer
certified questions from federal appellate courts. See id. art. V, § 3-c. All
other advisory opinions remain prohibited. The inherent consequence of
deciding a moot case, however, is the rendition of an advisory opinion. It
naturally follows that the only proper judgment in a moot case is one of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Our cases have described several “exceptions” to the mootness
doctrine, but there are no exceptions to the fundamental constitutional
requirement that courts may reach the merits of only live disputes. Each
recognized mootness “exception” complies with that mandate by
identifying disputes that seem to have ended but in fact remain live and
thus are not truly moot at all in a constitutional sense. Each exception
carefully ensures that the parties retain a genuine stake in the case and
that a judgment resolving the dispute would still afford genuine relief.
They are not exceptions to the Constitution’s limitations and,
particularly, its prohibition of advisory opinions.
The “public-interest exception,” by contrast, would be a true
exception—one that would allow courts to openly render advisory opinions
despite the constitutional ban on doing so. Courts must steadfastly accept
the constitutional limitations on our authority. That these limitations
are the law’s mandate should be enough. But beyond that, we can
hardly expect the other branches and the public to respect constitutional
boundaries if the courts are anything less than punctilious in doing so,
particularly if we are perceived as aggrandizing our own power.

3
We accordingly reverse the court of appeals’ judgment to the extent
the court held that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a moot
dispute. And because that determination was erroneous, we vacate the
court of appeals’ judgment on the merits along with the orders and
judgment of the trial court, and we render judgment dismissing the case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
I
In a 1997 consent decree, a California federal court approved a
class-action settlement in which, among other things, the federal
government agreed not to house illegal-immigrant minors in residential
facilities that lacked a valid state license. In 2014, the federal
government began using two Texas facilities, called Dilley and Karnes,
to detain families with children who had illegally entered the United
States. Shortly thereafter, class members returned to federal court to
file a motion to enforce the 1997 consent decree on the ground that the
Dilley and Karnes facilities lacked a valid state license. The court held
that the federal government had breached the settlement agreement by
housing mothers and their children in secure, unlicensed facilities. See
Flores v. Johnson, 212 F. Supp. 3d 864, 880 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
responded by promulgating a rule in March 2016 (after initially adopting
it the prior year on an emergency basis) that established licensing
requirements for “family residential centers”—facilities like Dilley and
Karnes and, as far as we know, only those facilities. 26 Tex. Admin. Code
§ 748.7. To simplify things, family residential centers are essentially a
subset of a preexisting category, “general residential operations,” which

4
includes specifically defined child-care facilities that provide full-time
care for a specified number of children. Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 42.002(4).
To qualify for a license, a new “family residential center” must satisfy the
rules governing “general residential operations,” with a few exceptions.
One exception allows qualifying facilities to house adults and children
in the same bedroom, aiming to prevent the nighttime separation of
children from their mothers. 26 Tex. Admin. Code § 748.7(c). To avoid
splitting sibling groups, another exception allows more than four
occupants per bedroom in certain circumstances. Id.
Grassroots Leadership, Inc., a nonprofit civil-rights organization,
sued the department in September 2015 to challenge the rule. Grassroots
later amended its petition to add several detainee mothers and a day-care
operator as plaintiffs. The petition alleges that, in reliance on the rule,
Dilley and Karnes allowed unrelated adults and children to share
bedrooms and that, because of that action, one of the mother’s children
was sexually assaulted. The rule, they allege, increased the safety risk to
detainees and children and resulted in longer detention periods. The
plaintiffs asked the district court for a declaration that the department
lacked the authority under the Administrative Procedure Act to adopt the
rule; they also sought a permanent injunction. If the rule is invalid, then
so are the licenses; if the licenses are invalid, then the consent decree bars
the federal government from detaining children at Dilley and Karnes.
Corrections Corporation of America (known as CoreCivic) and The
GEO Group, Inc., the respective operators of Dilley and Karnes,
intervened to defend the rule. The department, CoreCivic, and GEO
Group filed pleas to the jurisdiction in the trial court asserting that the

5
plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the rule. In relevant part, the trial
court denied the pleas and eventually rendered summary judgment on
the claim for declaratory relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
It declared the rule invalid and enjoined the department from granting
licenses under it.
The Third Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the detainee-
mothers’ injuries were not traceable to the rule because the rule does
not allow children to share a bedroom with unrelated adults. The court
also held that any increase in the length of detention was not traceable
to the rule. With no individual plaintiff who had standing, the court
concluded, Grassroots likewise lacked standing.
We reversed, holding that the detainee mothers had adequately
established standing. Grassroots Leadership, Inc. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. &
Protective Servs., 646 S.W.3d 815, 820–21 (Tex. 2022). Specifically, we
concluded that the rule does allow children to share bedrooms with
unrelated adults, which the “general residential operations”
requirements prohibit, and so the injury was sufficiently traceable to the
new rule. Id. at 819–20. We remanded for the court of appeals to consider
the remaining jurisdictional issues and, if appropriate, the merits. Id.
at 821. (Only the plaintiff-mothers’ claims remain, see id. at 819 & n.4,
but for convenience, we collectively refer to “Grassroots” as making the
plaintiffs’ shared arguments.)
On remand, the court of appeals held the claims “moot by
definition” because the detainees were no longer residents at the
facilities. 665 S.W.3d 135, 141 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023). The period of
detention at the facilities was quite short; the court of appeals explained,

6
and Grassroots agrees, that “the evidence establishes that the average
length of detention [at the facilities] is eleven days, a period too short to
complete litigation.” Id. For example, the only concrete evidence
presented as to any particular plaintiff’s detention shows that one mother
was released eight days after being added as a plaintiff to this lawsuit. It
is undisputed that none of the plaintiff mothers remains detained. The
parties do dispute the conditions of any release, while the court of appeals
held that “there is no evidence explaining the circumstances or conditions,
if any, of the detainees’ release.” Id.
The court also held that the “capable of repetition yet evading
review” exception did not save the claims from mootness. Grassroots
cited legal authority allowing re-detention of the plaintiffs generally but
did not cite evidence “that these same former detainees are reasonably
likely to be detained at Dilley or Karnes again.” Id. Therefore, the court
could not “conclude that there [was] more than a mere physical or
theoretical possibility that they will be detained in one of these two
centers—or any center—again.” Id. at 142.
The court then, however, explained that its precedent allowed it to
invoke the so-called “public-interest exception” to mootness, under which
it could reach the merits despite having no live dispute involving the
parties to the litigation. Stating that this Court has not yet considered
the “viability of [the] public-interest exception,” the court of appeals
explained that the exception “allows appellate review of a question of
considerable public importance if that question is capable of repetition
between either the same parties or other members of the public but for
some reason evades appellate review.” Id. (quoting Univ. Interscholastic

7
League v. Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, no
writ)). The court deemed the rule’s validity to be a matter of great public
importance. Id. After reaching the merits, the court held that the rule
was invalid. See id. at 147–48.
The department filed a petition for review. It contends that the
court of appeals rightly found the claims moot, wrongly employed the
public-interest exception as a basis to reach the merits, and then reached
the wrong merits result. Grassroots defends the judgment below but
argues that the court of appeals was mistaken to think that it needed to
invoke the public-interest exception to mootness. According to
Grassroots, the claims are not moot at all because the plaintiff-mothers’
release from detention does not foreclose the possibility of re-detention.
In any event, it continues, even if this argument were wrong, the capable-
of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception would save the claims from
mootness. And if even that exception were not enough, Grassroots
concludes, the court of appeals’ invocation of the public-interest exception
would be justified, and the court correctly invalidated the rule.
II
The Texas Constitution imposes important justiciability limits on
the judiciary’s power. “Justiciability doctrines” anchored in the
Constitution’s text, structure, and history help courts assess their
authority to adjudicate a given dispute. Central to this case is the doctrine
of mootness. Unlike in the many cases where a doctrine’s underlying
source does not much matter, whether and to what extent the
Constitution defines and requires dismissal of moot cases is of the utmost
importance here. The court of appeals’ decision to reach the merits of a

8
moot case relies entirely on the notion that a court may choose to do so
despite acknowledging the lack of a live dispute. Implicit in that notion is
a view of the Constitution’s understanding of justiciability. Specifically, if
a court may decide a moot case that the court thinks raises issues of public
significance, then the Constitution must have authorized that choice all
along, for if the Constitution requires a live dispute at every stage of
litigation, then no court could make an “exception” to it. See, e.g.,
Travelers’ Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 76 S.W.2d 1007, 1011 (Tex. 1934) (“[Courts]
are without power to write . . . an exception into the organic law.”).
The judgment of the court of appeals, therefore, rests on the
premise that the doctrine of mootness is at least in large measure a
matter of judicial administration or prudence rather than of
constitutional command. The court of appeals never expressly confronted
that question; the Constitution makes no appearance in its opinion. In
fairness, the court did not devise the “exception” in this case. It followed
its own 1993 precedent that expressly authorized the “public-interest
exception.” See 665 S.W.3d at 142 (tracing the authority to Buchanan,
848 S.W.2d at 304).
As we describe below, this Court’s cases have repeatedly
reaffirmed, including after the Third Court embraced the public-interest
exception in 1993, that mootness is a constitutional limitation on judicial
authority. Thus, “[h]owever much we may desire to provide answers in
these now-moot . . . proceedings, the constitution prohibits us from doing
so, and we must respect that prohibition.” ERCOT, Inc. v. Panda Power
Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 631 (Tex. 2021)
(emphasis added). Notably, we have at least heavily suggested that the

9
public-interest exception is an unauthorized basis for jurisdiction: “We do
not have power to decide moot cases, whether they ‘involve a matter of
public concern’ or not.” Morath v. Lewis, 601 S.W.3d 785, 789 (Tex. 2020)
(citation omitted).
These and other holdings should have cast doubt on the court of
appeals’ reliance on its precedent that embraced the public-interest
exception. See Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 256–58 (Tex. 2022)
(recognizing that courts of appeals must adhere to the principles of
horizontal stare decisis, which includes not following precedents that
have been disturbed by higher authority, including decisions of this
Court). Today’s case, at the very least, illustrates the need for this Court
to remove all doubt about the matter.
We must, in other words, assess whether the Constitution truly
imposes the core requirement of a live dispute or whether the courts may
depart from it. We confirm our repeated assertions that mootness is one
aspect of the constitutional concept of justiciability—a limitation on
judicial power that neither the judiciary nor any other authority subject
to the Constitution may set aside or disregard. To resolve the case,
therefore, we proceed in two steps. First, we explain why mootness—as
one of the core justiciability doctrines—is in fact a manifestation of the
text, structure, and history of the Texas Constitution. Second, we apply
the mootness doctrine to the circumstances of this case.
A
“Justiciability” is a formal word for a fundamental concept: the line
separating lawsuits that courts may adjudicate from those they may not.
A case may be justiciable yet not fall within a particular court’s subject-

10
matter jurisdiction, but courts never have subject-matter jurisdiction over
cases that are nonjusticiable. Over time, therefore, justiciability
doctrines have been developed to readily identify when adjudicating a
case would exceed judicial authority, and especially when doing so would
violate the limitations on the judiciary imposed by the Constitution. One
fundamental example is “adversity between parties” because “without
such adversity there is no justiciable controversy.” Paxton v. Longoria,
646 S.W.3d 532, 538 (Tex. 2022).
The most familiar justiciability doctrines are standing, mootness,
and ripeness, all of which “help ensure that courts do not issue advisory
opinions,” Bienati v. Cloister Holdings, LLC, 691 S.W.3d 493, 498 (Tex.
2024), and which aid the resolution of “a real and substantial controversy
involving genuine conflict of tangible interests and not merely a
theoretical dispute,” Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Lynch, 595 S.W.3d 678, 685
(Tex. 2020) (quoting Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467
(Tex. 1995)). The Texas Constitution does not mention mootness,
standing, ripeness, or any other justiciability doctrine by name, but those
doctrines work together to ensure that at every stage of litigation, a live
dispute exists that is proper for judicial resolution, which in turn ensures
that the eventual judgment resolves the dispute. Unsurprisingly, given
that there are only “subtle differences between mootness and related
justiciability concepts, such as ripeness and standing,” Travelers Ins. Co.
v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. 2010), a case failing one of those
tests often will fail another, or even all three, cf., e.g., MedImmune, Inc.
v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 128 n.8 (2007) (noting that the “standing
and ripeness” issues in the case “boil[ed] down to the same question”).

11
Cases that focus on one doctrine often, therefore, deploy constitutionally
based justiciability analysis that is applicable to the others.
Beyond delineating their constitutional dimensions, Texas courts
have sometimes noted that the familiar justiciability doctrines also have
a “prudential” aspect, meaning that the courts themselves have erected
justiciability barriers beyond what the Texas Constitution may demand.
See, e.g., King St. Patriots v. Tex. Democratic Party, 521 S.W.3d 729, 735
& n.21 (Tex. 2017) (noting that “even in a case raising only prudential
concerns, the question of ripeness may be considered on a court’s own
motion” (citation omitted)). The question before us, however, is the extent
to which the Constitution provides the underlying basis for these
interrelated justiciability requirements. In other words, we need not
address the extent to which the judiciary or the legislature may require
more than the Constitution does; the point is that they may not authorize
courts to proceed with any lesser showing of justiciability than the
Constitution demands.
As this Court’s cases reflect, at least five specific provisions of the
Constitution’s text implicate justiciability: Article V, § 1’s “judicial power”
provision; Article V, § 3(a)’s “cases” requirement; Article II, § 1’s
“separation of powers” clause; Article IV, § 22’s “legal advice” provision;
and Article I, § 13’s “open courts” provision. These provisions also
illustrate how our constitutional structure likewise limits the judiciary to
the exercise of only judicial power, and they are bound up in the history
of how our People have allocated governmental authority. We address
them in turn.
The judicial-power provision. First, the Constitution confines

12
Texas courts to exercising only “judicial power” and no other kind.
Article V, which governs the “Judicial Department,” begins this way: “The
judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court . . . .”
Tex. Const. art. V, § 1; see also id. art. V, § 3(a) (providing for this Court
to “exercise the judicial power of the state except as otherwise provided
in this Constitution”).
As we recently observed, “the judicial power” referenced in the
Constitution includes two broad categories: “jurisdictional power” and
“administrative powers.” See Webster v. Comm’n for Law. Discipline, 704
S.W.3d 478, 489 (Tex. 2024). In Webster, we focused on the
administrative category and explained that “the original public meaning
of the ‘judicial power’ created by the Texas Constitution” includes, among
other things, “the judiciary’s authority to regulate the practice of law.”
Id. at 490–91; accord id. at 507 n.5 (Boyd, J., dissenting).
Today’s case, by contrast, involves the far more familiar
“jurisdictional power” of the courts—the power “to adjudicate cases or
liquidate law.” Id. at 489. In this context, the original public meaning of
the term “judicial power” is well recognized. It implicates the authority
to resolve actual, non-collusive legal disputes brought by adverse parties
who have a genuine legal interest and a live stake in the outcome, which
can be reduced to an enforceable judgment. This power includes, for
example, “the distinctly judicial duties of rendering judgment, imposing
sentence, and adjudicating any appellate or collateral challenges that
may be raised.” In re Tex. House of Representatives, 702 S.W.3d 330, 342
(Tex. 2024). In this context, “ ‘[j]udicial power’ is the power of a court to
decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons

13
and parties who bring a case before it for a decision.” Morrow v. Corbin,
62 S.W.2d 641, 644 (Tex. 1933); see also, e.g., Panda Power, 619 S.W.3d
at 637 n.17.
The traditional understanding of “judicial power” goes far beyond
Texas, of course. The text of Article III of the U.S. Constitution begins
exactly as Article V of our Constitution does: “The judicial Power of the
United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . .” U.S. Const.
art. III, § 1. The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that the judicial
power granted in the U.S. Constitution “gives the Federal Judiciary the
power, not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them, subject to review
only by superior courts in the Article III hierarchy—with an
understanding, in short, that ‘a judgment conclusively resolves the case’
because ‘a “judicial Power” is one to render dispositive judgments.’ ” Plaut
v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218–19 (1995) (citation omitted);
see also, e.g., Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 494 (2011).
Confining courts to the exercise of “judicial power,” therefore,
circumscribes the kinds of disputes that courts can resolve. We have long
held, for example, that “the rendition of advisory opinions has generally
been held not to be the exercise of judicial power.” Morrow, 62 S.W.2d at
643–44 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J.
v. Burch, 442 S.W.2d 331, 334 (Tex. 1968) (“[T]he giving of advice as to
proposed or possible settlements is not a judicial function.” (emphasis
added)), overruled on other grounds by Farmers Tex. County Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex. 1997). To be clear, advisory opinions
are not inherently pejorative or improper—they can be quite valuable.
Clients depend on lawyers to provide high-quality legal advice. But

14
providing advisory opinions is not a species of judicial power, as it exists
outside “the conception of those who framed” the judicial-power provision.
Morrow, 62 S.W.2d at 644. Thus, Morrow rejected authority conferred
by statute precisely because it called for “the rendition of an advisory
opinion” that was “not within the appellate power of our revisory courts.”
Id. at 647.
A dispute must remain live until final judgment to be one that fits
within the judicial power. It can be entirely appropriate for the other
branches of government to resolve disputes that the judiciary cannot,
even in some legal contexts. Every time a law is passed, an executive
order is issued, a nomination is approved or rejected, or a policy choice is
otherwise enacted, a dispute of some sort is thereby resolved. But such
decisions are not judicial—they would not fit within “the judicial
power”—unless they actually and finally resolve a live, concrete,
particularized dispute among genuinely adverse parties whose legal
rights will be liquidated by a judgment. “Decisions” or “opinions” lacking
those features might be useful or even urgent, but they would not be
“judicial” because they would be impermissibly advisory.
The Constitution’s grant of the “judicial power,” in other words,
itself reflects a justiciability limit that the courts may not transgress.
This Court has been so committed to this limitation that it is only because
of a constitutional amendment that we may answer certified questions
of law from federal courts. See United Servs. Life Ins. Co. v. Delaney,
396 S.W.2d 855, 859–64 (Tex. 1965) (explaining that Texas courts could
not even adjudicate a declaratory-judgment action to supply a legal
answer necessary for resolving pending-but-abated federal cases because,

15
in so doing, the Texas court could not resolve the case but could only
supply an advisory opinion for another court’s use). A certified question
still constitutes a request for an advisory opinion—but it is a kind, indeed
the only kind, that the Constitution authorizes us to issue. In 1985, the
People amended the Constitution to allow us to answer questions certified
by “a federal appellate court.” Tex. Const. art. V, § 3-c(a); see Panda
Power, 619 S.W.3d at 637 n.17 (describing this provision as a
constitutionally authorized “exception” to the otherwise-binding
prohibition of issuing “advisory opinions”). Article V, § 3-c is thus yet
another constitutional provision illustrating the requirements of
justiciability. If advisory opinions were already available, we would not
have needed that provision, and its exacting specificity makes clear that,
outside the context of federally certified questions, advisory opinions fall
outside the judicial power, no matter how important or desirable. See,
e.g., Panda Power, 619 S.W.3d at 641. And even in that context, we have
never said that the other justiciability principles are irrelevant or have
been eliminated.
In short, “the judicial power” authorizes Texas courts only to
render judgments that bind live parties rather than give useful but
abstract legal answers. Mootness is simply one tool of complying with the
constitutional directive that courts exercise only the judicial power.
The “cases” requirement. Second, and like the federal
Constitution, ours not only limits courts to “the judicial power” but then
defines the courts’ adjudicative authority by reference to “cases.”
Article III describes “cases” or “controversies,” whereas our Constitution
refers to “cases” when describing the adjudicative functions authorized

16
under “the judicial power.” Both formulations play the same limiting role.
Our Constitution, for example, states that this Court’s authority “shall
extend to all cases except in criminal law matters and as otherwise
provided in this Constitution or by law.” Tex. Const. art. V, § 3(a)
(emphasis added). It repeatedly describes the other courts’ authority in
terms of deciding “cases” as well. See id. art. V, §§ 4(b), 5(a), (b) (court
of criminal appeals); id. art. V, §§ 5(b), 6(a) (courts of appeals); id. art. V,
§§ 7(d), 8 (district courts); id. art. V, § 11 (describing recusal of judges
based on varying relationships between a judge and a “case”). No less
than the federal Constitution, therefore, the Texas Constitution
repeatedly invokes the textual concept of “cases” as the judiciary’s
proper domain. “Cases” provide the form, in other words, in which the
adjudicative power of the Texas courts may operate.
The concept of a “case” goes hand-in-hand with the concept of “the
judicial power.” For in a “case,” the court “hear[s] the facts,” “decide[s]
the issues of fact made by the pleadings,” “decide[s] the questions of law
involved, and possess[es] the power to enter a judgment on the facts found
in accordance with the law as determined by the court.” Delaney, 396
S.W.2d at 861; accord, e.g., Holmes v. Morales, 924 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex.
1996). And that “determination once made, in [that] particular case,”
cannot be reversed by, say, the legislature, which only “may prescribe a
new rule for future cases.” Plaut, 514 U.S. at 222 (emphasis added)
(quoting The Federalist No. 81, at 545 (Alexander Hamilton) (J. Cooke ed.
1961)). This Court has treated our “cases” provision as identical to the
federal “case or controversy” provision to make the point: “A judicial
decision reached without a case or controversy is an advisory opinion,

17
which is barred by the separation of powers provision of the Texas
Constitution.” Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d 158, 164 (Tex. 2004)
(citing Tex. Const. art. II, § 1); see also Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73
S.W.3d 211, 222–23 (Tex. 2002); Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd.,
852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993).
The textual reference to “cases” bolsters the core point that
advisory opinions are beyond the judicial sphere. A “case” must be
understood as one within the judicial power, and as Brooks put it, an
advisory opinion in contravention of the separation of powers would
result if the courts resolved a dispute that was not properly deemed a
“case.” 141 S.W.3d at 164.
The separation-of-powers clause. Third, “[l]ike the United
States and our sister states, ours is a tripartite system of government”
with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Webster, 704
S.W.3d at 487 (first quoting Tex. Const. art. II, § 1; and then citing id.
arts. III–V). But unlike the federal Constitution, ours goes beyond
structure and implication by expressly commanding the separation of
powers. Beginning in 1845, each Constitution of the State of Texas has
provided that “[t]he powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall
be divided into three distinct departments,” granting powers that “are
Legislative to one” department, “those which are Executive to another,
and those which are Judicial to another,” and then forbidding those
departments from “exercis[ing] any power properly attached to either of
the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.” Tex.
Const. art. II, § 1; see also Webster, 704 S.W.3d at 487.
Article V requires courts to exercise only “the judicial power” and

18
to do so by resolving only “cases,” while Article II requires that only courts
may exercise that power. “[T]he lines which separate the powers of the
three great departments of our government are not always clearly
drawn,” of course, but “we find no difficulty in concluding that no power
is more properly or certainly attached to the judicial department than
that which determines controverted rights to property by means of
binding judgments.” Bd. of Water Eng’rs v. McKnight, 229 S.W. 301, 304
(Tex. 1921). The separation of powers thus protects the judicial role from
incursion, but at the same time, it imposes a “limit on courts’ jurisdiction.”
Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444 (emphasis added). To prevent
improper judicial intrusion into non-judicial terrain, “we have construed
our separation of powers article to prohibit courts from issuing advisory
opinions because such is the function of the executive rather than the
judicial department.” Id.
We have frequently noted that the separation-of-powers clause
limits courts to resolving live disputes, which advisory opinions by
definition cannot do. “The constitutional roots of justiciability doctrines
such as ripeness, as well as standing and mootness, lie in the prohibition
on advisory opinions, which in turn stems from the separation of powers
doctrine.” Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Hous. & Se. Tex., Inc., 971
S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998) (citing Tex. Const. art. II, § 1); see NCAA v.
Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (“Appellate courts are prohibited from
deciding moot controversies. This prohibition is rooted in the separation
of powers doctrine in the Texas and United States Constitutions that
prohibits courts from rendering advisory opinions.” (internal citation
omitted)); see also, e.g., In re Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372,

19
379 (Tex. 2022); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822
(Tex. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court has also repeatedly linked
justiciability to the separation of powers. See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486, 512 (1969) (“[T]he doctrine of separation of powers is more
properly considered in determining whether the case is ‘justiciable.’ ”);
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984) (“[T]he law of Art. III standing
is built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers.”).
Notably, we have recognized that the separation of powers, and its
concomitant justiciability limitation, is an innovation that distinguishes
American government from our English roots: “In England chancery
courts exercise nonjudicial, as well as judicial, powers; but our equity
courts possess only judicial powers.” Ex parte Hughes, 129 S.W.2d 270,
273 (Tex. 1939); accord Allred v. Beggs, 84 S.W.2d 223, 228 (Tex. 1935).
The English courts were the king’s courts, after all. If our courts were
mere adjuncts of the other branches, rather than a purposefully
independent branch, it would not matter much whether our courts
ventured into non-judicial territory. But the People of Texas have instead
delineated judicial authority with precision, both to protect the
independence and accountability of the judiciary and to ensure that the
other branches remain independent and accountable for their own
actions. Resolving live rather than theoretical disputes is a justiciability
limit that ensures that all branches properly exercise their own, and only
their own, authority.
The legal-advice provision. Fourth, and again like the federal
Constitution, the Texas Constitution punctuates the requirement for live
and concrete decisions to qualify as justiciable by expressly assigning

20
advisory opinions elsewhere: “The Attorney General shall . . . give legal
advice in writing to the Governor and other executive officers, when
requested by them.” Tex. Const. art. IV, § 22. The federal Constitution
more broadly provides that “[t]he President . . . may require the opinion,
in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments,
upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.” U.S.
Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
If anything, the Texas provision is more focused on the proper
authority to give advisory legal opinions, but both this Court and the U.S.
Supreme Court have recognized the respective provisions as reflecting
an important justiciability limitation. Our decision in Morrow relied
heavily on this textually expressed delegation of legitimate advisory-
opinion authority to explain why the judiciary lacked such authority
under the original public meaning of our Constitution: “the Attorney
General, a member of the Executive Department, is the only state officer
expressly authorized to render such opinions.” 62 S.W.2d at 644
(emphasis added). Only after making that textual point did Morrow
emphasize that, wholly aside from Article IV, § 22, “the rendition of
advisory opinions has generally been held not to be the exercise of judicial
power.” Id. (citing a wide variety of scholarship and judicial authorities).
We have reaffirmed these holdings. See, e.g., Cal. Prods., Inc. v. Puretex
Lemon Juice, Inc., 334 S.W.2d 780, 782–83 (Tex. 1960) (rejecting
authority to issue “merely advisory opinions” via declaratory judgments
because “[i]n government this is a duty of the executive branch” and
because “[i]n private business it is the function of the legal profession”).
And nearly from the beginning of its history, the U.S. Supreme

21
Court has invoked the analogous provision from Article II of the federal
Constitution to demarcate judicial authority to only live disputes. The
courts, it said, could not render advisory opinions because “the Power
given by the Constitution to the President of calling on the Heads of
Departments for opinions, seems to have been purposely as well as
expressly limited to executive Departments.” 6 Documentary History of
the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789–1800, at 755 (M. Marcus
ed., 1998) (reprinting letter dated Aug. 8, 1783, from the justices to
President Washington). In that instance, Secretary of State Thomas
Jefferson, on behalf of President George Washington, turned to the
Supreme Court with a list of serious questions about the United States’
legal obligations. It was a dangerous time for the fledgling republic—in
the midst of a war ranging between Britain and France—and the
president “would . . . be much relieved” to receive answers to those
questions, which “would secure us against errors dangerous to the peace
of the [United States].” Id. at 747 (reprinting letter dated July 18, 1793,
from Thomas Jefferson to the justices). If the Supreme Court declined to
provide urgently requested assistance to George Washington because only
live disputes between parties presented justiciable cases and because
advisory opinions were purposefully assigned to other branches, it is hard
to imagine the kind of urgency that would warrant this Court yielding to
the temptation to do so today.
The open-courts provision. Fifth, and unlike the federal
Constitution, our Bill of Rights contains an open-courts provision: “All
courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him . . . , shall
have remedy by due course of law.” Tex. Const. art. I, § 13. Justiciability

22
limits flow in part from “the open courts provision, which contemplates
access to the courts only for those litigants suffering an injury.” Tex.
Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444 (emphases added).
We have had many occasions to confirm that the “access” that “the
open-courts provision guarantees” is for “those who have suffered actual
injury, not to provide a forum for general injuries or hypothetical
complaints.” City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 145 (Tex.
2011); see also, e.g., Data Foundry, Inc. v. City of Austin, 620 S.W.3d 692,
700 (Tex. 2021); In re Abbott, 601 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex. 2020); Garcia v.
City of Willis, 593 S.W.3d 201, 206–07 (Tex. 2019); Heckman v. Williamson
County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 147 (Tex. 2012); S. Tex. Water Auth. v. Lomas,
223 S.W.3d 304, 307 (Tex. 2007). As Justice Gonzalez put it in a
concurring opinion quoting Texas Association of Business, “[w]e held
that [the open-courts] provision ‘contemplates access to the courts only
for those litigants suffering an injury.’ This provision, which authorizes
the courts to remedy injuries . . . , implicitly defines the bounds of
potentially justiciable issues.” Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at 445 (Gonzalez,
J., concurring) (quoting 852 S.W.2d at 444).
An injury that has not yet ripened, or that is not concrete or
genuine, or that has ceased to be remediable, is not an injury that a
litigant “is suffering.” We therefore reaffirm that the open-courts
provision expects courts to act as courts—to remedy actual injuries
without fear or favor, but not to address speculative or theoretical
disputes or disputes that, while once live, no longer are.
* * *
These textual provisions of the Texas Constitution provide the
roots of our justiciability doctrines. The fact that our Constitution

23
contains every textual and structural justiciability provision found in the
U.S. Constitution—and then adds even more through our separation-of-
powers and open-courts clauses—explains why, in case after case, this
Court has found federal doctrine instructive on justiciability’s minimum
requirements. See, e.g., Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 154; Brown v. Todd, 53
S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tex. 2001); Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444. True,
we are not in any sense bound by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conception of
the federal judicial power. See, e.g., Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 250
(Tex. 2001) (finding federal principles to be “consistent with our own
ripeness jurisprudence”). Article III directly governs only the federal
courts, not those of Texas. But given its additional textual and structural
limitations, any justiciability differences under our Constitution are
likely to be more restrictive, not less.
Reserving the demarcation of any such differences for future cases,
we find it enough to note here that the law-articulating work of both the
federal and Texas courts is available only if a judgment would redress a
genuine injury. Stated differently, but stated in our cases very frequently,
courts must refrain from issuing advisory opinions—not because such
opinions would be useless, but because issuing them would not resolve
a live dispute between actually adverse parties and therefore would not
constitute an exercise of the judicial power. The justiciability doctrines
help ensure that a case will not lead the judiciary into forbidden terrain.
Accordingly, we reaffirm that mootness, one of the core
justiciability doctrines, is rooted in the Texas Constitution. When a case
“becomes moot, and the issues no longer justiciable,” the case “should be
dismissed.” Sterling v. Ferguson, 53 S.W.2d 753, 760 (Tex. 1932). As we

24
have emphasized, “our lack of jurisdiction over moot cases is a mandate
of the constitution, not a matter of convenience.” Panda Power, 619
S.W.3d at 641. We have repeatedly described mootness in mandatory
constitutional terms, as a constitutional rather than merely prudential or
administrative limitation on the judicial power. See, e.g., State ex rel. Best
v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2018); Matthews v. Kountze ISD, 484
S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016). Thus, “[a]ny ruling on the merits of a moot
issue constitutes an advisory opinion, which we lack jurisdiction to issue.”
In re J.J.R.S., 627 S.W.3d 211, 225 (Tex. 2021) (emphasis added).
With this confirmation of justiciability’s constitutional minimum—
a live dispute whose resolution will not generate an advisory opinion—
we proceed to examine whether the case before us is moot.
B
Assessing mootness generally proceeds in two steps. First, we ask
if the case is moot on its face—that is, has the live controversy come to an
end. See Joachim, 315 S.W.3d at 865. If the answer is yes, we then ask
if any “exception” to mootness applies. See Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d
171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Given that the Constitution requires a live dispute
between genuinely adverse parties, see Joachim, 315 S.W.3d at 865, this
second step does not mean that the court may adjudicate a case lacking
those features. It instead means that some cases that are moot on their
face actually remain live—such as when collateral consequences flow
from the resolution of a seemingly moot dispute, see, e.g., Carrillo v. State,
480 S.W.2d 612, 616–18 (Tex. 1972), or when circumstances causing the
injury, despite having ended, are likely to recur as between the same
parties yet evade review because the injury is of short duration, see, e.g.,

25
Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tex. 1999) (applying the capable-
of-repetition exception).
Determining whether the court of appeals properly exercised
jurisdiction in this case requires us to examine both steps because
Grassroots contends that the case is not moot on its face but that if it is,
the capable-of-repetition exception saves it. But we also examine a third
step that the court of appeals added to the analysis: whether a “public-
interest exception” saves an otherwise moot dispute. Grassroots argues
that if we must reach the public-interest exception at all, we should adopt
it and then affirm the court of appeals’ judgment on the merits.
We address all three steps in turn.
1
The court of appeals held that this case became moot because, as
is undisputed, every plaintiff has long since been released from detention.
See 665 S.W.3d at 141. Grassroots disputes this conclusion on the ground
that the federal government may re-detain the plaintiffs and could do so
at Dilley or Karnes. The court of appeals rejected that basis for avoiding
mootness as unsupported by any record evidence about “the
circumstances or conditions, if any, of the detainees’ release.” Id. We
agree with the court of appeals.
The legal claim here is that the department promulgated its rule
in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. To assess a claim’s
justiciability, a court must begin with a clear-eyed view of how the claim
specifically affects the rights and interests of the parties themselves. To
anyone not held or imminently subject to being held within a relevant
facility, the procedural regularity of a rule leading to licensure raises only

26
a theoretical question. When we last addressed this case, we held that
these plaintiffs’ standing was secure because the plaintiff mothers could
allege specific and concrete injuries traceable to the rule. Grassroots, 646
S.W.3d at 820–21. The same kind of specificity is now essential to show
why the legal issue has not become abstract and theoretical because of
the mothers’ release. “Justiciability is a matter of concern in every civil
case, and remains a live concern from the first filing through the final
judgment.” Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 147.
One way mootness arises is if a ruling cannot “affect the parties’
rights or interests” such that it “would be without practical effect.” Panda
Power, 619 S.W.3d at 639 (emphasis added). If the prospective relief that
plaintiffs demand could not affect their interests in a non-speculative
way, resolving the case would generate an advisory opinion. “[I]t is
axiomatic that appellate courts do not decide cases in which no
controversy exists between the parties.” Camarena v. Tex. Emp. Comm’n,
754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988).
To decide whether the case is moot, we ask whether Grassroots
(or, more precisely, one of the plaintiffs it represents) retains, as the U.S.
Supreme Court has put it, “a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the
lawsuit,’ ” or, in other words, a “concrete interest, however small.”
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 161 (2016) (first quoting
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013); and then
quoting Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013)). Our statement in
Panda Power—that relief must have a “practical” effect, 619 S.W.3d at
639—reflects the need for a judgment to actually affect the plaintiff, not
merely vindicate a favored legal position. Another way our cases have

27
articulated the same point is that throughout litigation, there must
remain a “real and substantial controversy involving genuine conflict of
tangible interests and not merely a theoretical dispute.” Bonham State
Bank, 907 S.W.2d at 467.
To be clear, “substantial” does not mean “a big part of the case” or
“important to the law.” A claim does not become moot if only a small
part of the original amount in controversy remains disputed or if a judge
deems the legal rights that remain disputed to be relatively insignificant
compared to those asserted at a lawsuit’s inception. Rather, a “real and
substantial controversy” is one where the dispute is genuine, concrete,
and tangible rather than speculative, contingent, or hypothetical.
Accordingly, if a concrete dispute has become only theoretical, such
as when a party seeking prospective relief no longer would be affected if
that relief is granted, the claim is presumptively moot. That is why the
court of appeals was correct to conclude that the undisputed evidence of
these plaintiffs’ release from detention, which ended the injury essential
to justiciability, rendered their claims moot on their face absent some
non-speculative basis to show that the dispute nonetheless remains live.
665 S.W.3d at 141. The injury that would support jurisdiction to assess
the rule’s validity cannot merely be the risk of re-detention or even the
possibility of re-detention at Dilley or Karnes. Rather, the relevant injury
to the plaintiff-mothers is re-detention in an unlawfully licensed facility
with minor children and for an amount of time that would violate the
federal consent decree. Mootness cannot be defeated without showing
that all this is reasonably likely rather than speculative.
Grassroots resists this conclusion and asserts that its claims are

28
not moot even on their face. Its argument comes in two parts. First,
because mootness is not easily established, it contends that courts
should not find mootness until the party asserting it (here, the
department) proves it. Second, Grassroots argues that, even if it must
show why the case is not moot on its face, the federal government’s
statutory authority to re-detain these plaintiffs and Grassroots’s
expert’s deposition testimony achieve that goal.
We address both points in turn. As to the first one, Grassroots
unduly expands the circumstances in which mootness will not be found.
To the extent the department has a “burden” to establish mootness,
pointing out that the plaintiff mothers have all been released met that
burden. As to its second point, nothing Grassroots identifies constitutes
a non-speculative basis to think that any plaintiff in this case is
reasonably likely to be re-detained at Dilley or Karnes (much less with
children and for a time that would exceed the consent decree’s limits).
a
According to Grassroots, the plaintiff mothers are subject to
re-detention at Dilley or Karnes and so their claims never became moot.
Grassroots asserts that the department must affirmatively establish
mootness and that it cannot do so in light of these circumstances.
Grassroots supports these assertions by emphasizing our oft-
repeated admonition that mootness should be found reluctantly rather
than readily. As we put it last summer: “[M]ootness is difficult to
establish. The party asserting it must prove that intervening events
make it ‘impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to
the prevailing party.’ ” In re Dallas County, 697 S.W.3d 142, 151 (Tex.

29
2024) (quoting Abbott v. Mexican Am. Legis. Caucus, 647 S.W.3d 681, 689
(Tex. 2022)). Grassroots says that it is not “impossible” that any of the
plaintiff mothers might be re-detained at Dilley or Karnes with minor
children and for a lengthy period, so the department cannot meet its
burden to establish mootness.
Grassroots is at least correct that there is no presumption in favor
of mootness. Jurisdiction once established should not lightly be negated.
But the assessment of whether it is “impossible” is premised on the
antecedent requirement that such relief must be “effectual.” That
requirement cannot be speculative or contingent because it is key to the
constitutional mandate that a court may only resolve a dispute that
remains genuine and live, not one that has become theoretical or abstract.
Once it is established that the relief would be effectual if granted—that it
would resolve a live dispute and affect the plaintiff’s rights—then we will
refuse to find a case moot unless it is “impossible” for the court to award
that kind of relief. Grassroots’s error, in other words, is to expand this
principle to circumstances where it is doubtful that there is any actual
dispute to resolve in the first place.
The cases that Grassroots cites, and others, make this point. In
Mexican American Legislative Caucus, we held that an electoral-
redistricting claim that was unquestionably live when we issued our
opinion was not moot even though it would likely be overtaken by events
before the litigation’s end. See 647 S.W.3d at 689–90. Even more
recently, when pandemic-era governmental authority was the subject of
a case in this Court, the legislature enacted a statute that eliminated such
authority. See Abbott v. Harris County, 672 S.W.3d 1, 7 n.19 (Tex. 2023).

30
We did not dismiss the case as moot because the statute, despite having
been enacted, would not take effect until several months after we decided
the case. Id. The dispute was live until that supervening event occurred.
Id. Thus, it was not “impossible” to resolve a live dispute in those cases—
the stakes in each, although diminishing, remained present. As we
observed in Dallas County, “[c]ourts do not act in anticipation of potential
mootness,” and “only after a case becomes moot does a court lose
jurisdiction.” 697 S.W.3d at 151. The Supreme Court’s decision in
Campbell-Ewald is consistent with this premise because it required a
“concrete” interest for the plaintiff—perhaps “small,” but not attenuated,
doubtful, speculative, hypothetical, contingent, or theoretical. See 577
U.S. at 161.
We added further definition to the contours of when a court’s
ability to grant effectual relief is too speculative or contingent in Harper,
where we reiterated that a case was not moot because it was not
“impossible for the court to grant the relief requested or otherwise ‘affect
the parties’ rights or interests.’ ” 562 S.W.3d at 6 (emphasis added)
(quoting Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162). But we highlighted two practical
ways that a moot issue does not necessarily moot the case. For one, “a
case ‘is not rendered moot simply because some of the issues become moot
during the appellate process’ ”; rather, “[i]f only some claims or issues
become moot, the case remains ‘live,’ at least as to other claims or issues
that are not moot.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting In re Kellogg Brown &
Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005)); see also, e.g., Heckman, 369
S.W.3d at 167 (“[I]f even one issue remains live between defendants and
the putative class, the suit as a whole is not moot.”); Commonwealth Bank

31
& Tr. Co. v. Morris, 77 S.W.2d 871, 871 (Tex. 1934) (reviewing a challenge
to a statute and explaining that “since this question [was] the sole one
certified in this case, the cause as it exist[ed] in this court [was] moot”).
Courts may continue to adjudicate any parts of a case that remain within
their subject-matter jurisdiction and are otherwise justiciable. We did so
just this term, where we concluded that a challenge to a divorce decree
was not moot as it usually is following the death of one of the spouses
“because whether the marriage ended by divorce or by death
substantially affect[ed] the wife’s asserted property interests,” thus
providing a basis to resolve the legality of the divorce. In re Marriage of
Benavides, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2025 WL 1197404, at *1 (Tex. Apr. 25, 2025).
A second way arises when “in some cases—but not all—a claim for
attorney’s fees ‘breathes life’ into a suit that has become moot in all other
respects.” Harper, 562 S.W.3d at 7 (citation omitted). In other words, the
issue that animated a lawsuit may become moot, but if a statute entitles
a litigant to fees based on the merit of the claim, what seems like a moot
case may remain live. See, e.g., Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San
Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 790 (Tex. 2006) (“[I]n some instances a case is
not moot even though the only issue presented relates to court costs.”).
Beyond Harper’s two examples, our cases identify “voluntary
cessation” as another way that a case is not moot on its face despite the
seeming end of the underlying injury. See, e.g., In re Cont. Freighters,
Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 812–14 (Tex. 2022) (holding that the mandamus
petition remained live when plaintiffs unilaterally withdrew discovery
demands after the Court indicated interest in reviewing the petition
because the withdrawal lacked any enforceable guarantee that similar

32
demands could not be made again). Voluntary cessation typically is not
a basis for mootness because it often represents not a defendant’s
surrender but its attempt to avoid a binding loss. If voluntary cessation
required dismissal, a defendant unilaterally “could control the
jurisdiction of courts with protestations of repentance and reform, while
remaining free to return to their old ways.” Matthews, 484 S.W.3d at 418.
Importantly, however, as both Contract Freighters and Matthews
made clear, “voluntary cessation” can lead to mootness “when subsequent
events make absolutely clear that the [challenged conduct] could not
reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); accord Cont. Freighters, 646 S.W.3d at 814. In such a
situation, the dispute necessarily has ended, and no live claim remains.
A good example of this principle, and of the need for non-
speculative showings of continuing injury, is the U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974). DeFunis alleged
that a state law school denied him admission because of his race. Id. at
314. He was nonetheless admitted provisionally after obtaining an
injunction from a state court, but the state supreme court later reversed
the injunction. Id. at 314–15. He was not expelled because the Supreme
Court stayed the state supreme court’s judgment and set the case for
argument. Id. at 315. When the case was argued, DeFunis was in his
last term. Id. at 315–16. The law school represented that whether it won
or lost the appeal, it would allow DeFunis to complete that term and
graduate; graduation, of course, would eliminate the injury of being
wrongly denied admission. Id. at 316. The Court dismissed the case as
moot, reasoning that even if the challenged conduct (denial of admission)

33
had in a sense voluntarily ceased, the school’s representation satisfied the
principle that it was not reasonably likely to recur as to DeFunis. Id. at
316–20. The kind of “voluntary cessation” that would not lead to
mootness, the Court observed, would have existed if the law school had
simply (and not irrevocably) changed its admission procedures, leaving
it free upon dismissal of the case to restore those procedures and eject
DeFunis. Id. at 318.
DeFunis reflects that at bottom, mootness poses a practical test, not
one that turns on speculative, theoretical, contingent, or unlikely events
that might happen. After all, a ruling for DeFunis would have given him
some additional protections. Justice Brennan’s dissent pointed out that
“[a]ny number of unexpected events—illness, economic necessity, even
academic failure—might prevent his graduation at the end of the term.”
Id. at 348 (Brennan, J., dissenting). The case was not moot, Justice
Brennan argued, because the law school did not guarantee DeFunis any
terms after this one—so reversal “could insure that, if for some reason
[DeFunis] did not graduate this spring, he would be entitled to re-
enrollment at a later time on the same basis as others who have not faced
the hurdle of the University’s allegedly unlawful admissions policy.” Id.
Justice Brennan’s approach accords with the mootness theory that
Grassroots advances, but this Court’s cases share the DeFunis majority’s
functional understanding of mootness. Hence our conclusion in Panda
Power that the case was moot because a judgment would have no
“practical effect,” despite the still-raging legal dispute and the strong
desire for an advisory opinion. See 619 S.W.3d at 639.
Time and again, we have taken this approach. In Texas A & M

34
University–Kingsville v. Yarbrough, a professor sued over an allegedly
improper negative evaluation that she thought would harm her tenure
prospects—but then was granted tenure. 347 S.W.3d 289, 291 (Tex.
2011). She claimed that the dispute remained live because the evaluation
would remain in her file and, under the university’s rules, could affect
“future employment decisions” about her. Id. We found her claim to be
moot on its face because it “d[id] not present a substantial controversy,
between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy
and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Id. (first
emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It is
not “impossible,” of course, that the negative evaluation could ever cause
later harm, but it was entirely speculative. See id.
Similarly, in Glassdoor, Inc. v. Andra Group, LP, we found facial
mootness where Andra hoped to identify and then sue anonymous online
commenters through a Rule 202 proceeding against Glassdoor, the online
forum where the allegedly defamatory statements had been posted. 575
S.W.3d 523, 525 (Tex. 2019). But the limitations period for any
defamation claim expired during the Rule 202 litigation, leading us to
conclude that the Rule 202 litigation had been rendered moot. Id. at 527,
530. True, we agreed, it was not literally impossible for the Rule 202
proceeding to benefit Andra, for “the statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense,” id. at 527 n.3, that any defendants identified through
the Rule 202 proceeding could have waived or forfeited. That theoretical
possibility, however, was too remote to satisfy our mootness standards.
In short, as with the law of standing, our approach to mootness
insists on a close tether to reality and rejects indulging “an ingenious

35
academic exercise in the conceivable.” United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S.
669, 688 (1973). Yes, it is conceivable that one of the previous detainees
may be re-detained, with children, at Dilley or Karnes, and for the
requisite amount of time. But under our cases, that mere possibility is
not enough, without more, to overcome facial mootness. The “impossible
to grant relief” test does not refer to metaphysical impossibility, as if we
were inviting lawyers to devise the equivalent of a Rube Goldberg
machine for justiciability—some theoretical but highly unlikely path to
converting what otherwise would be an advisory opinion into a genuinely
effectual judgment. “[O]ne can never be certain that findings made in a
decision concluding one lawsuit will not some day . . . control the outcome
of another suit. But if that were enough to avoid mootness, no case would
ever be moot.” United States v. Juv. Male, 564 U.S. 932, 937 (2011) (per
curiam) (quoting CFTC v. Bd. of Trade of Chi., 701 F.2d 653, 656 (7th
Cir. 1983) (Posner, J.)).
Accordingly, the department carried any burden it bore to show
that all the claims in this case are moot on their face. Without dispute, it
conveyed that none of the individual plaintiffs remained detained in an
unlicensed facility—not because of any actions of the department but
because of third-party decisions of the federal government. Likewise, any
return to detention would require the federal government’s independent
decisions. To avoid dismissal, Grassroots must identify a non-speculative
basis for concluding that the detainees’ release did not facially moot the
claims. We now turn to the arguments Grassroots has raised on that
point.

36
b
Grassroots disputes any burden to negate mootness, but it
identifies two grounds for why the claims are not moot, even on their face.
First, the plaintiff mothers are subject to being re-detained at the
discretion of the Attorney General of the United States. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(b) (“The Attorney General at any time may revoke a bond or
parole[,] . . . rearrest the alien under the original warrant, and detain the
alien.”). Second, Grassroots claims that its expert’s deposition testimony
shows that the re-detention authority is real. Thus, judicial relief is
necessary to prevent re-detention at an unlicensed facility. We find these
contentions insufficient to overcome mootness and address them in turn.
First, we assume that the statute’s scope is as broad as Grassroots
asserts. If we were adjudicating the plaintiffs’ right to be in the United
States free from any threat of removal or detention, the existence of that
statutory authority might well prevent conditional release from mooting
the claims. Grassroots cites several federal cases involving direct federal
claims under federal immigration law that suggest that result. See Clark
v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005) (reasoning that because the
parolee’s release was “subject to the [Secretary of Homeland Security’s]
discretionary authority to terminate” parole, he “ ‘continue[d] to have a
personal stake in the outcome’ of his petition” (citation omitted)); Rosales-
Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 395–96 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(reasoning that because Rosales’s “immigration parole can be revoked by
INS at any time for almost any reason,” his “appeal [was] not moot”);
Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117–18 (9th Cir. 2010) (relying on
Clark to deem the claim not moot); In re Hutto Fam. Det. Ctr., No. A-07-

37
CA-164-SS, 2007 WL 9757682, at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 29, 2007) (same).
But even assuming that a conditional release would not moot a challenge
to one’s immigration status under federal law, whether that release has
mooted the state-law rule challenge here raises a quite different question.
For one thing, the relief in the two circumstances is materially
different. A successful plaintiff in the federal cases would obtain a
judicial determination against the federal government concerning her
immigration status, including whether, for example, she could be
removed or detained at all. Even if a plaintiff is never again to be
detained, determining the lawfulness of her presence in the country itself
may itself have consequences as to her ability to obtain employment or
housing and could thus provide the basis for her claim to remain live
(assuming that the federal government remains adverse).
Grassroots, of course, does not ask for any immigration-related
relief here. The premise of this case is that the plaintiffs can be subjected
to continued detention, yet that, for distinct reasons, particular kinds of
detention require a valid state license. All agree, as Grassroots puts it,
that “[t]he propriety of the rule [the department] issued is unquestionably
and solely a matter of state law” under our Administrative Procedure Act.
For the state-law question to remain live, therefore, the continuing threat
of federal enforcement is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. It is
not sufficient because, unlike obtaining some form of federal relief,
invalidating the department’s rule requires the nonspeculative continuing
threat not just of some adverse federal action, but all four of these specific
events: a governmental choice to re-detain any of these plaintiffs; re-
detention at Dilley or Karnes; re-detention with a minor child; and re-

38
detention for a duration that exceeds what the consent decree allows.
The statutory re-detention authority that Grassroots cites,
therefore, cannot prevent mootness of this far-more-attenuated claim
unless it is accompanied by evidence suggesting more than a speculative
likelihood of those four developments for the particular plaintiffs in this
case. Otherwise, the federal government’s statutory authority standing
alone is comparable to a bare theoretical possibility that a decision might
eventually prove useful in cases like DeFunis, Yarbrough, or Glassdoor—
hypothetically possible, but insufficient to overcome facial mootness.
Thus, while we assume that each of the four steps is possible, mere
possibility is not enough. “[U]nder our Constitution,” the judiciary may
“not give advice or decide cases upon speculative, hypothetical, or
contingent situations.” Coalson v. City Council of Victoria, 610 S.W.2d
744, 747 (Tex. 1980); accord Camarena, 754 S.W.2d at 151 (citing Coalson,
610 S.W.2d at 747). It is at least as true in the context of justiciability as
elsewhere in the law that “we cannot ‘pile speculation on speculation and
inference on inference.’ ” Raoger Corp. v. Myers, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2025
WL 1085173, at *4 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2025) (quoting Marathon Corp. v.
Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724, 729 (Tex. 2003)). The claims here are therefore
moot on their face unless Grassroots can show that reaching the merits
will not be an abstract ruling but will directly affect these plaintiffs’
interests under the same “reasonable likelihood” or “reasonable
expectation” standard typically used for justiciability inquiries. Cf., e.g.,
Robinson v. Parker, 353 S.W.3d 753, 755–56 (Tex. 2011) (discussing
ripeness); Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184–85 (discussing mootness).
The deposition testimony of Erica Schommer, Grassroots’s expert

39
witness, comes into play here because it supplies the only other evidence
on which Grassroots relies. Schommer stated that U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has broad discretion to re-detain released
immigrants for any reason that it deems appropriate. But Schommer’s
testimony fails to show any non-speculative, heightened, or imminent
likelihood as to even one named plaintiff. Instead, the testimony achieves
the opposite. As we read it, it reveals that the mothers’ re-detention is
only a remote possibility rather than the reasonable likelihood that this
Court’s precedent requires. See, e.g., Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184. Indeed,
in 2015 alone, some 16,000 individuals resided in Dilley, but Schommer
only knew of “at least over [twenty]” families in her entire career that had
been re-detained at either Dilley or Karnes, and she personally had only
“a few clients” ever in that situation.
Even more significantly, Schommer confirmed that her re-detained
clients fit within three basic groups: those who violated their conditions
of parole, those who committed a crime, or those who received an adverse
decision in their federal case. The first and second grounds—the
possibilities of violating conditions of parole or committing crimes—
cannot overcome mootness, and it is of course improper to assume that
anyone would commit those actions. See, e.g., Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 185
(observing that ex-detainees are “required by law to prevent their own
recidivism”). Said another way, the notion that a former detainee would
violate a condition of parole or commit a criminal offense is a speculative
leap that blocks rather than establishes justiciability. See, e.g., O’Shea v.
Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496–97 (1974) (“[A]ttempting to anticipate
whether and when these respondents will be charged with crime . . .

40
takes us into the area of speculation and conjecture.”). The third-cited
reason for re-detention—receiving an adverse immigration decision—is
equally unlinked to any of these plaintiffs. Indeed, nothing in the
testimony (or elsewhere in the record as presented to us) suggests that
any of them is especially likely to receive an adverse determination or
that, even if such a determination comes, it would make re-detention a
likely consequence. The testimony only works the other way: that if re-
detention occurs, the re-detained individual would likely have fit in one
of the three categories Schommer listed. None of this remotely supports
Grassroots’s contention that the case never became moot in the first place.
At best, the evidence Grassroots has presented “is hypothetical,
‘iffy’ and contingent,” which amounts to no evidence at all. Burch, 442
S.W.2d at 333. The court of appeals rightly held that the record before
it did nothing to show how these plaintiffs could benefit in more than a
speculative way by continuing the litigation. 665 S.W.3d at 141.
* * *
We reiterate that “under our Constitution, [courts] do not give
advice nor decide cases upon speculative, hypothetical, or contingent
situations.” Coalson, 610 S.W.2d at 747. No plaintiff is currently
experiencing the alleged injury here—detention in an allegedly
unlawfully licensed facility—and their return to any affected facility is
entirely “speculative, hypothetical, or contingent.” Nothing here prevents
this case from being deemed moot on its face. Unless an “exception”
applies—the question to which we next turn—the case must be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
At the same time, however, we cannot and need not hold that none
of the plaintiffs will ever be re-detained at either of these facilities. Our

41
case law addresses this scenario, too. In another case, which we
dismissed for lack of ripeness, we wrote: “We note that the [plaintiffs] are
not irrevocably harmed by this dismissal. Because the case is dismissed
without prejudice, if they choose, they can re-file and develop a record
demonstrating that the claims have ripened, allowing a new suit to
proceed.” Waco ISD v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex. 2000). The same
is true for mooted disputes, of course. That a claim cannot be adjudicated
because of mootness does not foreclose litigation if the injury does recur.
It would no longer be speculative or attenuated, and the very fact of
recurrence as to a particular plaintiff would likely make it harder to again
dismiss that plaintiff’s claim as moot.
2
Grassroots argues that the claims are saved by the capable-of-
repetition-yet-evading-review “exception” even if we find them moot on
their face. The court of appeals rejected that argument, 665 S.W.3d at
141–42, and we again agree. To explain why, we first discuss the
concept of “exceptions” to mootness and then assess whether any of them
saves Grassroots’s claims from mootness.
This Court has recognized two primary and generally available
“exceptions” to mootness: (1) the “collateral consequences” exception and
(2) the “capable of repetition” exception. See FDIC v. Nueces County, 886
S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. 1994). 1 The deployment of the word “exception”

1 Class actions present a separate context that is not at issue here.
Without addressing all the justiciability complexities that class litigation can
engender, it is sufficient to note that courts cannot adjudicate a class’s claims
unless “there remains a live interest between the class of affected individuals—
thereby satisfying constitutional justiciability concerns.” Heckman, 369 S.W.3d

42
can be misleading because what we have referred to as mootness
“exceptions” are not really exceptions at all. They do not allow courts to
disregard the boundaries of the judicial power and adjudicate cases that
are actually moot. Rather, the exceptions elucidate when a case that
seems moot actually remains live for reasons that might not be
immediately apparent.
The collateral-consequences exception allows courts to decide cases
“when vacating the underlying judgment will not cure the adverse
consequences suffered by the party seeking to appeal that judgment.”
Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 789. Criminal cases are frequent examples.
Convicts may be subject to burdens or obligations that linger even after
any sentence has ended, affecting their right to vote, possess firearms, or
enjoy other freedoms generally available to those without a conviction.
This Court has long recognized, for example, that “[a] juvenile’s appeal of
his adjudication is not moot simply because his disposition has ended
when . . . potential collateral consequences remain,” such as required sex-
offender registration or the inability to seal juvenile records. In re T.V.T.,
675 S.W.3d 303, 307 (Tex. 2023) (citing Carrillo, 480 S.W.2d at 617). In
such cases, the parties remain adverse and have the requisite stakes to
pursue the case. The government’s interest is in defending its conviction
and allowing any continuing consequences to be imposed. The
defendant’s interest is not merely in clearing his name but in avoiding
those consequences. “In no practical sense, therefore, can [a] case be said

at 165. Notably, this case was not brought as a class action, ostensibly for
legitimate reasons relating to litigation funding. We express no view of whether
this case, if brought as a class, could avoid mootness; it is enough that it cannot
avoid mootness in the form in which it has been brought.

43
to be moot” under those circumstances. Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S.
211, 222 (1946). We have made the same point regarding various kinds
of mental-health adjudications that entail continuing consequences.
See, e.g., In re A.R.C., 685 S.W.3d 80, 83 (Tex. 2024) (“An involuntary-
commitment order imposes collateral consequences under federal and
state law.”); State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex. 1980) (similar).
But a dispute remains live under the collateral-consequences
exception only if the otherwise-moot claim itself is the source of a
sufficiently concrete collateral consequence. If the consequence would
exist regardless, then the case remains moot. When a juvenile defendant
was required to register as a sex-offender under state law regardless of
the underlying federal adjudication, no concrete interest justified
maintaining the litigation: “True, a favorable decision in this case might
serve as a useful precedent for respondent in a hypothetical lawsuit
challenging Montana’s registration requirement on ex post facto grounds.
But this possible, indirect benefit in a future lawsuit cannot save this case
from mootness.” Juv. Male, 564 U.S. at 937.
The capable-of-repetition exception likewise applies only in rare
circumstances. Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184. To invoke it, a plaintiff must
prove that “(1) the challenged action was too short in duration to be
litigated fully before the action ceased or expired; and (2) a reasonable
expectation exists that the same complaining party will be subjected to
the same action again.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words, the same
dispute still divides the same parties despite the seeming termination of
the dispute’s initial cause, thus generating a “reasonable expectation” of
that cause’s recurrence. In this sense, the capable-of-repetition exception

44
dovetails with two circumstances that we have described as not leading
to mootness in the first place: mere voluntary cessation and when there
is a non-speculative basis for finding that adjudicating the case and
granting the desired relief would give the plaintiff a tangible and concrete
benefit. The capable-of-repetition exception recognizes genuine, ongoing
disputes as not really moot at all, but it screens out cases where any
resulting judgment would be unlikely to directly affect the actual parties’
interests. See, e.g., In re Uresti, 377 S.W.3d 696, 696 (Tex. 2012) (“Uresti
has not shown a reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the
same action again.”).
The central point is that both exceptions only help determine
whether a case that seems moot at first glance really is—essentially
addressing the same question we considered in response to Grassroots’s
assertion that the case was not even facially moot. The fundamental
requirement, to which there is no exception, remains unchanged: the
presence of a live dispute between parties with continuing adverse
interests that can be settled by a judgment that will actually affect the
parties’ rights.
We are not alone in recognizing that the term “exception” might be
a bit of a misnomer. See, e.g., Eden, LLC v. Justice, 36 F.4th 166, 170 n.4
(4th Cir. 2022) (noting that “ ‘exception’ in th[e] [mootness] context is a
colloquialism” (citing Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, 20 F.4th
157, 162 n.4 (4th Cir. 2021))). The point is important because if the
“exceptions” are perceived as allowing courts to adjudicate cases that are
not actually live, it would be tempting to embrace the erroneous view that
mootness is a purely “prudential,” rather than a distinctly constitutional,

45
doctrine. Contra, e.g., State v. Roat, 466 P.3d 439, 446 (Kan. 2020)
(concluding that “[i]f mootness were jurisdictional, we could not have such
court-created exceptions”). Whatever we call them, therefore, it is
important to correctly view the “exceptions” as in no way purporting to
be exemptions from the constitutional mandate that we have described.
With that foundation, we now turn to Grassroots’s contention that
the capable-of-repetition exception saves its case from mootness. The
court of appeals correctly concluded that the first prong of the exception
was met because the period for detention at Dilley and Karnes is eleven
days on average, a period far too short to complete litigation. 665 S.W.3d
at 141. But it also correctly identified the problem with the second prong.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has put it, a “mere physical or theoretical
possibility” is insufficient to invoke the capable-of-repetition exception.
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982). Because we do not presume
mootness, when there are circumstances like those discussed above in
Part II.B.1, we will not regard a claim as moot on its face. But as
Grassroots has acknowledged, we do not presume that one of the
“exceptions” to mootness applies—the exception must be established. The
evidence required is essentially the same as what a plaintiff must identify
to rebut a defendant’s establishment of facial mootness: a basis that is not
speculative or hypothetical for why continuing the litigation would
tangibly and directly affect the plaintiffs’ rights. As both we and the U.S.
Supreme Court have put it in the context of the capable-of-repetition
exception, “there must be a ‘reasonable expectation’ or a ‘demonstrated
probability’ that the same controversy will recur involving the same
complaining party.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Uresti, 377 S.W.3d at

46
696 (observing that “a reasonable expectation must exist that the ‘same
complaining party will be subjected to the same action again’ ” (quoting
Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184)).
But to support its capable-of-repetition argument, Grassroots
points to the same deposition testimony of its expert, who stated that ICE
has broad discretion to re-detain released immigrants for any reason. We
have already explained why that testimony cannot satisfy the required
standards. See supra Part II.B.1.b. Grassroots cannot show a
“reasonable likelihood” that any plaintiff in the case will be subjected to
any of the steps leading to a restoration of the injury that a judgment
could redress, much less all of them, and thus cannot establish the
capable-of-repetition exception.
3
After concluding that Grassroots’s claims are moot and that the
capable-of-repetition exception did not apply, the court of appeals then
addressed “whether appellees’ second asserted exception to mootness
applies: the public-interest exception.” 665 S.W.3d at 142. According to
the court, this exception “expands the capable-of-repetition exception to
include parties other than those involved in the current case.” Id.
In one sense, it is hard to blame courts for pushing the envelope.
If several “exceptions” to mootness already exist, after all, why not one
more? But the public-interest exception differs from the existing
exceptions not just in degree but in kind. Every recognized exception
carefully ensures that the minimum requirements for constitutional
justiciability are satisfied and never leads to an advisory opinion. But the
public-interest exception is a true exception. It allows adjudication of

47
admittedly non-live disputes when a judge finds an issue to be of broad
public importance. This “exception” does not steer clear of constitutional
impediments. It hurtles toward them. If invoking it is necessary for a
court to reach the merits, an advisory opinion is the guaranteed outcome.
Each of the constitutional provisions that we have identified as
relevant to justiciability confirms our analysis. “The judicial power” has
never been understood to encompass rendering judgments that could only
benefit non-parties. A “case” has always been understood to require
genuine adversity by those who are party to it. The separation-of-powers
clause leaves to the other branches any dispute that lacks the features of
a “case” that can be adjudicated by a court. The open-courts provision
allows individuals to bring suit if a judgment can remedy an actual injury
or prevent one that is threatened and imminent. And the Constitution
expressly leaves advisory opinions about legal issues that are not reduced
to adversary litigation to the attorney general, at least until a justiciable
dispute arises.
Grassroots argues that a number of other states have embraced
the public-interest exception and that we should adopt it too. The U.S.
Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in DeFunis. 416 U.S. at 316.
The Court acknowledged that the public-interest exception would save
the case from mootness in Washington’s state courts. Id. But it refused
to follow suit because the exception was inconsistent with the federal
Constitution’s limitations on federal jurisdiction. Id. at 319–20.
Neither has this Court been unaware that some other states’
judiciaries can issue various forms of advisory opinions. See, e.g.,
Delaney, 396 S.W.2d at 859. Each state is free to chart its own course

48
based on its own constitutional text and tradition, which may include
allowing various kinds of advisory opinions, such as those generated by
the public-interest exception. See, e.g., Duhon v. Gravett, 790 S.W.2d 155,
156 (Ark. 1990).
After all, some states’ constitutions have, for centuries, not only
expressly allowed but have compelled certain advisory opinions. Well
before the U.S. Constitution’s ratification, several state constitutions
directed state high courts to answer requests for advice. In
Massachusetts, for example, “[e]ach branch of the Legislature, as well as
the Governor and Council, shall have the authority to require the
opinions of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, upon important
questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.” Mass. Const. of 1780,
part II, ch. III, art. II. That obligation remains intact to this day. Nearly
verbatim text was considered but rejected at the federal convention, see,
e.g., 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 341 (M. Farrand
ed., 1911) (“Each branch of the Legislature, as well as the Supreme
Executive shall have authority to require the opinions of the supreme
Judicial Court upon important questions of law, and upon solemn
occasions.”). But as ratified, the Constitution leaves federal courts with
only unadorned “judicial power,” which excludes advisory opinions.
We do not purport to instruct our colleagues on our sister states’
high courts how to best interpret their own law. But the roots of our
justiciability doctrines lie in the text of the Texas Constitution, not in the
traditions, experiences, or choices of other states. We therefore reiterate
that “[w]hile other jurisdictions possibly having different constitutional
provisions may hold differently from our present holding,” “[i]n the

49
absence of a constitutional provision authorizing the Texas courts to
render advisory opinions, such power does not exist.” Burch, 442 S.W.2d
at 335.
The framers and ratifiers of the Texas Constitution were students
of the federal Constitution and those of other states, borrowing language
from them for use in our own Constitution. Texans were no less aware
than those who framed and ratified the federal Constitution that people
in other states had authorized their judiciaries to sometimes issue
advisory opinions. But the constitutional limitations adopted by the
People of Texas are far closer to the federal model. Our Constitution
contains every justiciability limit in the federal Constitution and then
adds more of its own. See supra Part II.A. The People have amended the
Constitution once and only once to grant us authority that did not lie
within “the judicial power” by allowing us to answer questions certified
by federal appellate courts—that is, to provide a kind of advisory opinion
when we could not adjudicate the case itself. See Tex. Const. art. V, § 3-c.
The fact that only such advisory opinions have been constitutionally
authorized underscores that all other advisory opinions remain as firmly
inconsistent with “the judicial power” of our State as they have ever been.
Of course, should they deem it expedient, the People may again amend
the Constitution to authorize advisory opinions of whatever sort and to
whichever courts they choose.
We note again that this Court has already at least forecast our
decision today. In Morath, we explained:
We do not have power to decide moot cases, whether they
“involve a matter of public concern” or not. Indeed, the need
for courts to mind their jurisdictional bounds is perhaps at

50
its greatest in cases involving questions of public
importance, where the potential for undue interference with
the other two branches of government is most acute. If
courts were empowered to ignore the usual limits on their
jurisdiction, such as mootness, when matters of public
concern are at stake, then we would no longer have a
judiciary with limited power to decide genuine cases and
controversies. We would have a judiciary with unbridled
power to decide any question it deems important to the
public. That is not the role assigned to the courts by our
constitution.
601 S.W.3d at 789 (internal citations omitted). Whether that statement
was necessary for the decision in Morath or not, we think it accurately
summarizes the law, and to the extent it was not already so understood,
we adopt that statement from Morath as a holding. 2 A genuine
controversy must exist between the parties at each stage of proceedings,
including on appeal. Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184. There can be no
exception to that foundational justiciability principle.
We hold that the “public-interest exception” violates the Texas
Constitution’s justiciability limitations. No court in Texas may invoke
that doctrine as a basis to reach the merits of a case that otherwise is not

2 Arguably, an even older authority rejects the public-interest exception

for moot cases. In General Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., the State argued
that “the ‘collateral consequences’ exception is applicable because of both the
public interest in resolving this important question of administrative law, and
the ruling’s effect upon the numerous administrative hearings which are
pending.” 789 S.W.2d 569, 572 (Tex. 1990). With some understatement, we
observed that “[t]his is not the type of case which was envisioned when this
exception was created.” Id. And we held that “the fact that an important
question of administrative law is involved, the resolution of which would aid the
agency, is not sufficient impetus for this court to render an advisory opinion.”
Id. (emphasis added).

51
justiciable. We expressly disapprove any case to the extent that it has
relied upon the public-interest exception or has acknowledged the public-
interest exception’s validity as a method to assess subject-matter
jurisdiction. 3 We express no other views about anything stated in those
opinions.
III
A court always has jurisdiction to decide its own and the lower
courts’ jurisdiction. The court of appeals concluded that this case was
justiciable. This holding was erroneous because Grassroots’s claims are
moot, the “capable of repetition” doctrine does not save them, and there
is no “public-interest exception” that authorizes Texas courts to resolve

3 We accordingly disapprove of the jurisdictional holdings in at least

these cases: In re Guerra, 235 S.W.3d 392, 432 n.198 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg 2007, pet. denied); Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg, 106
S.W.3d 803, 810–11 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied); Nueces County v.
Whitley Trucks, Inc., 865 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg
1993), dismissed sub nom. FDIC, 886 S.W.2d at 766; Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d at
304; Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. LaFleur, 32 S.W.3d 911, 914 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2000, no pet.).
We likewise disapprove of the recognition of the availability of the public-
interest exception in at least the following cases: City of Georgetown v. Putnam,
646 S.W.3d 61, 73 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. denied); Port of Corpus Christi,
LP v. Port of Corpus Christi Auth. of Nueces County, No. 13-19-00378-CV, 2021
WL 2694772, at *8 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 1, 2021, no pet.);
NextEra Energy, Inc. v. PUC, No. 03-19-00425-CV, 2020 WL 4929778, at *4 (Tex.
App.—Austin Aug. 21, 2020, pet. denied); Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective
Servs., No. 03-15-00631-CV, 2016 WL 3521888, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin June
23, 2016, pet. denied); Fiske v. City of Dallas, 220 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2007, no pet.); Hatten v. Univ. Interscholastic League, No. 13-06-
00313-CV, 2007 WL 2811833, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept.
27, 2007, pet. denied); In re Guardianship of Keller, 171 S.W.3d 498, 501–02
(Tex. App.—Waco 2005), rev’d sub nom., Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.
2007); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 691–92 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–
Edinburg 2003, no pet.).

52
moot cases. We therefore reverse the court of appeals’ judgment with
respect to its jurisdictional conclusion. Likewise, because the court of
appeals lacked authority to proceed to the merits, we vacate its judgment
with respect to its decision on the merits of the challenge to the rule, and
we also vacate the judgment and orders of the district court. We
accordingly render a judgment of dismissal without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

Evan A. Young
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: May 30, 2025

53