Texas Department of Insurance v. Texas Association of Health Plans ( 2020 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00185-CV
Texas Department of Insurance, Appellant
v.
Texas Association of Health Plans, Appellee
FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-18-003846, THE HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING
OPINION
In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Department of Insurance (the Department)
challenges the trial court’s denial of the Department’s plea to the jurisdiction on two claims
brought by the Texas Association of Health Plans (the Association): (1) a claim under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), see Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038, seeking to invalidate
certain Department rules as “invalid exercises of [the Department’s] statutory authority” to
regulate certain health plans (the APA Claim); and (2) an alternative claim under the Uniform
Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 37.001–.011, seeking
to invalidate certain Texas Insurance Code provisions that “authoriz[e] out of network payments
at ‘usual and customary rates’” as “unconstitutional delegations of state authority to self-
interested private entities” (the UDJA Claim). The Department argues that sovereign immunity
bars these claims. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Association is “a not-for-profit trade association representing the legal and
financial interests of licensed Texas health insurers, health maintenance organizations (HMOs)
and other health plans licensed to operate in Texas” with a mission to “improve healthcare in
Texas, including by improving the value and cost-effectiveness of healthcare services covered by
its members’ plans.” In 2018, the Association sued the Department, raising its APA Claim and
alternatively its UDJA Claim, asserting associational standing to bring claims on behalf of its
members, and claiming that section 2001.038 waives sovereign immunity as to its APA Claim.
The Department filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that sovereign immunity barred the
APA and UDJA Claims and challenging the Association’s standing to bring the claims on behalf
of its members. At an evidentiary hearing, the Association submitted affidavits from its
members supporting associational standing, and the Department does not challenge the
Association’s standing in this interlocutory appeal. Following the hearing, the trial court denied
the Department’s plea to the jurisdiction. The Department timely appealed the order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Procedurally, the assertion of sovereign immunity implicates the trial court’s
jurisdiction and is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction.” PHI, Inc. v. Texas Juvenile
Justice Dep’t, No. 18-0099, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2019 WL 1873431, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 26, 2019)
(citing Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. 2016); Rusk
State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 91 (Tex. 2012)). When a plea challenges the pleadings, we
determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction
to hear the case, construing the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and looking to the
2
pleaders’ intent. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry., 487 S.W.3d at 160 (quoting City of El Paso
v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. 2009)). When the relevant jurisdictional facts are
undisputed, as they are here, “the trial court rules on the plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of
law.” PHI, ___ S.W.3d at ___, 2019 WL 1873431, at *3 (quoting Texas Dep’t of Parks &
Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227–28 (Tex. 2004)). We review the trial court’s ruling
on the plea de novo. See id.
DISCUSSION
The Department raises two issues on appeal. First, the Department argues that
sovereign immunity bars the Association from asserting its APA Claim. According to the
Department, “section 2001.038 [] limits who may invoke its waiver of immunity” and does not
waive sovereign immunity for a claim brought by an association to challenge the Department’s
rules on behalf of its members because the provision requires an allegation “that the rule or its
threatened application interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, a legal
right or privilege of the plaintiff.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038(a) (emphasis added). Second,
although the UDJA waives sovereign immunity for constitutional challenges to statutes, the
Department argues that the UDJA Claim is in effect a statutory construction claim that is barred
by the redundant remedies doctrine and that even if it is a constitutional challenge to the statute,
the Association did not sufficiently plead a viable constitutional claim.
The APA Claim
The parties agree that section 2001.038 of the Texas Government Code is the only
possible statutory basis for a waiver of the Department’s sovereign immunity as to the
Association’s rule challenge in its APA Claim. In interpreting a statutory provision to determine
3
whether the legislature has waived sovereign immunity, we look to the text of the statute at issue
to determine whether it contains a clear and unambiguous expression of waiver. See Wichita
Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tex. 2003) (“It is settled in Texas that for the
Legislature to waive the State’s sovereign immunity, a statute or resolution must contain a clear
and unambiguous expression of the Legislature’s waiver of immunity.”); see also Tex. Gov’t
Code § 311.034 (“In order to preserve the legislature’s interest in managing state fiscal matters
through the appropriations process, a statute shall not be construed as a waiver of sovereign
immunity unless the waiver is effected by clear and unambiguous language.”). Here, the
relevant statute reads:
The validity or applicability of a rule, including an emergency rule adopted under
Section 2001.034, may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment if it is
alleged that the rule or its threatened application interferes with or impairs, or
threatens to interfere with or impair, a legal right or privilege of the plaintiff.
Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038(a). The Department does not dispute that “section 2001.038 is a
grant of original jurisdiction and, moreover, waives sovereign immunity,” Machete’s Chop Shop,
Inc. v. Texas Film Comm’n, 483 S.W.3d 272, 286 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, no pet.) (quoting
Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Dep’t of Transp., 241 S.W.3d 105, 123 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no
pet.)), as to a suit brought by a plaintiff alleging that a rule interferes with or impairs its legal
right or privilege. And the Department agrees that an association can challenge a rule under
section 2001.038 if the association alleges interference with or impairment of the association’s
legal right or privilege. But, in what appears to be a novel interpretation of section 2001.038, the
Department claims that the scope of the sovereign immunity waiver does not extend to an
associational plaintiff alleging interference with or impairment of its members’ legal rights or
privileges. We disagree.
4
The term “plaintiff” refers to the party bringing suit. See Plaintiff, Black’s Law
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The party who brings a civil suit in a court of law.”); Plaintiff,
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1729 (2002) (defining “plaintiff to mean “one
who commences a personal action or lawsuit to obtain a remedy for an injury to his rights”; “the
complaining party in any litigation”). The Department argues that since the Association is the
party bringing suit, the Association must allege that the rule or its threatened application
interferes with or impairs its legal right or privilege, not the legal right or privilege of its
members. However, the United States Supreme Court has noted that “for the purpose of
determining the scope of [an association’s] rights as a litigant, the association ‘and its members
are in every practical sense identical’” and the modern concept of associational standing emerged
out of this explanation. See United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown
Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551 (1996) (quoting NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449,
459 (1958)). Applying this same logic to the sovereign immunity context, we conclude that
because an association’s “rights as a litigant” are “in every practical sense identical” with “its
members,” an association that can satisfy associational standing requirements to challenge a rule
under section 2001.038 would also be alleging that the rule or its threatened application
interferes with or impairs the rights or privileges of the plaintiff, even if those rights or privileges
are of the association’s members.
We recognize that “standing and sovereign immunity are distinct jurisdictional
concepts.” Texas Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726, 745 (Tex. App.—
Austin 2014, pet. dism’d). But with respect to section 2001.038, the Texas Supreme Court has
instructed: “We treat [section 2001.038(a)]’s requirement as but another expression of the
general doctrine of standing.” Finance Comm’n of Tex. v. Norwood¸ 418 S.W.3d 566, 582 n.83
5
(Tex. 2013). In Norwood, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether the plaintiffs
sufficiently pleaded the requisite interest to bring suit. Id. at 582. The Norwood Court noted that
the plaintiffs’ pleadings tracked the language of section 2001.038(a) and that the provision “does
not purport to set a higher standard than that set by the general doctrine of standing, and it cannot
be lower, since courts’ constitutional jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by statute.” Id. at 582 n.83.
Although Norwood did not specifically address the question of whether an association that met
the requirements of associational standing also satisfied section 2001.038(a)’s requirements to
challenge a rule, the Norwood Court spoke broadly and plainly as to how courts should treat
section 2001.038(a)’s requirement.
After Norwood was decided, litigants argued before this Court that Norwood
concerned statutory standing, not waiver of sovereign immunity. Nevertheless, we held:
But while it is true that standing and sovereign immunity are distinct jurisdictional
concepts, it remains that appellants’ “sovereign immunity” challenge is rooted in
the same “legal right or privilege” language that the Norwood court concluded,
contrary to appellants’ view, “does not purport to set a higher standard than that
set by the general doctrine of standing.” Additionally, we observe that the
Norwood court did not characterize this issue as one of statutory “standing,” but
analyzed it in the more general terms of “the injury required by [APA section
2001.038] for judicial review,” phraseology that equally contemplates a
requirement for invoking the statute’s waiver of sovereign immunity so as to
permit “judicial review” of the challenged rules. Nor would any such labels be
significant, in our view, given that the Texas Supreme Court considers sovereign
immunity to implicate subject-matter jurisdiction—and to be susceptible of being
raised for the first time on appeal—just as with standing issues. . . .
[W]e cannot conclude that the above-quoted language leaves room for lower
courts to conclude that the existing or threatened interference or infringement
with a “legal right or privilege of the plaintiff” required by APA section
2001.038—whether viewed in terms of “standing” under the statute or of the
sufficiency of pleadings or proof required to invoke the statute’s waiver of
sovereign immunity—is “a higher standing than that set by the general doctrine
of standing.”
6
Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d at 744–45 (footnotes and citations omitted). Following Norwood and
Balquinta, we conclude that the language “legal right or privilege of the plaintiff” in section
2001.038 is “but another expression of the general doctrine of standing,” Norwood, 418 S.W.3d
at 582 n.83, whether viewed in terms of standing or waiver of sovereign immunity.
Since 1993, the general doctrine of standing in Texas law has included the
associational standing test as articulated by the United States Supreme Court:
[A]n association has standing to sue on behalf of its members when “(a) its
members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests
it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the
claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual
members in the lawsuit.”
Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 447 (Tex. 1993) (quoting Hunt
v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977), and holding, “The United
States Supreme Court has articulated a standard for associational standing that lends itself to our
use. We adopt that test today.”); see also Brown Grp., 517 U.S. at 551 (“[F]or the purpose of
determining the scope of [an association’s] rights as a litigant, the association ‘and its members
are in every practical sense identical.’” (quoting NAACP, 357 U.S. at 459)); Glanton ex rel.
ALCOA Prescription Drug Plan v. AdvancePCS Inc., 465 F.3d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir. 2006)
(noting that federal cases enunciating associational standing doctrine “turn on the fiction that an
individual member authorizes the group to sue on his behalf”). Thus, an association that meets
this associational standing test satisfies the general standing requirements that “[t]he plaintiff
must be personally injured—he must plead facts demonstrating that he, himself (rather than a
third party or the public at large), suffered the injury,” Heckman v. Williamson County,
369 S.W.3d 137, 155 (Tex. 2012), even though the association was not “personally injured,” see
7
South Tex. Water Auth. v. Lomas, 223 S.W.3d 304, 308 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (applying
associational standing test); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554–55 (Tex. 2000)
(noting that “when a defendant asserts that a plaintiff organization does not have standing to
assert claims on behalf of its members” then “a determination of associational standing is a
prerequisite to the plaintiff’s presentation of its substantive claims”).1
Shortly after the Texas Supreme Court decided Texas Association of Business in
1993, the legislature codified into the Texas Government Code the predecessor to section
2001.038(a) without substantive change. See Act of May 4, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 268, § 1,
1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 583, 739 (codified at Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038(a)). The legislature is
presumed to be “aware of relevant case law when it enacts or modifies statutes” and “‘[a] statute
is presumed to have been enacted by the legislature with complete knowledge of the existing law
and with reference to it.’” In re Allen, 366 S.W.3d 696, 706 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding)
(quoting Acker v. Texas Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex. 1990)). Thus, when the
legislature codified section 2001.038(a), it is presumed to have been aware that the Texas
Supreme Court adopted the associational standing test in Texas Association of Business earlier
that year; yet, the legislature did not change section 2001.038’s “legal right or privilege of the
plaintiff” language.
Moreover, since 1993, we have decided myriad cases without questioning the
legislature’s waiver of sovereign immunity when membership organizations have brought a rule
1 The Department does not challenge the Association’s ability to meet this test, and our
review of the record—including the affidavits submitted at the evidentiary hearing as to how the
Association’s members risk being adversely affected by the rules at issue in this appeal—does
not give us cause to conclude sua sponte that the Association lacked standing.
8
challenge under section 2001.038.2 See, e.g., Texas Ass’n of Acupuncture & Oriental Med.
v. Texas Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 524 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.); Texas
Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs v. Texas Med. Ass’n, No. 03-14-00396-CV, 2014 WL 7014530
(Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 8, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Texas Ass’n of Psychological Assocs.
v. Texas State Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists, 439 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, no
pet.); Texas Soc. of Prof’l Eng’rs v. Texas Bd. of Architectural Exam’rs, No. 03-08-00288-CV,
2008 WL 4682446, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 24, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); Texas State Bd.
of Podiatric Med. Exam’rs v. Texas Orthopaedic Ass’n, No. 03-04-00253-CV, 2004 WL 2556917
(Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 12, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.); Texas State Bd. of Plumbing Exam’rs
v. Associated Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of Tex., Inc., 31 S.W.3d 750, 752 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2000, pet. dism’d by agr.); Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n v. Amusement &
Music Operators of Tex., Inc., 997 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. dism’d
w.o.j.). Although section 2001.038(a) and its substantially similar predecessor have been law
2 We recognize that these cases do not necessarily implicate the merits of whether
sovereign immunity was waived as to associations because the sovereign immunity issue was not
joined. As the Texas Supreme Court recently noted, it has “been more guarded in [its]
description of the interplay of jurisdiction and sovereign immunity,” it “‘does not equate
immunity to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,’” and “‘while a court is obliged to examine its
subject-matter jurisdiction on its own in every case, we have never suggested that a court should
raise immunity on its own whenever the government is sued.’” Engelman Irrigation Dist.
v. Shields Bros., Inc., 514 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Rusk State Hosp. v. Black,
392 S.W.3d 88, 102 (Tex. 2012) (Hecht, J., concurring)). Nevertheless, in our precedent
predating Engelman, we have noted that Rusk implies that sovereign immunity may be raised by
an appellate court sua sponte. See Texas Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d 726,
745 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. dism’d) (citing Texas State Bd. of Veterinary Med. Exam’rs
v. Giggleman, 408 S.W.3d 696, 707 n.18 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.)). Regardless,
although not precedential, we find support for our conclusion in these myriad cases as
representative of the standard practice of associations to challenge agency rules under section
2001.038 to which both this Court and the legislature have remained silent as to sovereign
immunity for over twenty years and to which the executive apparently has not challenged in this
Court until now.
9
since 1975, the Department has not identified a single case in which sovereign immunity barred
an association from bringing a rule challenge under section 2001.038(a) or its predecessor.
For all these reasons, we decline the Department’s invitation in this appeal to
interpret section 2001.038’s waiver of sovereign immunity as excluding associations that satisfy
the general standing doctrine. Because it is undisputed that the Association satisfied the
requirements for associational standing, we overrule the Department’s first issue.
The UDJA Claim
We now turn to the Department’s second issue—whether sovereign immunity
bars the UDJA Claim. In its live petition, the Association, citing Texas Boll Weevil Eradication
Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen, 952 S.W.2d 454, 472 (Tex. 1997), described its UDJA Claim
as follows:
In the alternative, and only if the Court construes the statutes to require charges-
based payments as described above, [the Association] seeks a declaration under
the UDJA that Insurance Code Provisions authorizing out of network payments at
“usual and customary rates” are unconstitutional delegations of state authority to
self-interested private entities.
The Department appears to challenge this claim based on the pleadings, making three arguments
for why sovereign immunity bars the Association’s UDJA Claim.
First, the Department argues that the Association’s UDJA Claim is in effect solely
a statutory construction claim and that “the UDJA does not provide a waiver for bare statutory-
construction claims.” But the Association’s live petition does not ask the trial court to construe
the statutes under the UDJA; rather, the Association pleads the UDJA Claim in the alternative
and “only if the Court construes the statutes” in a certain manner in evaluating its APA Claim.
The UDJA Claim is for a declaration “that Insurance Code provisions authorizing out of network
10
payments at ‘usual and customary rates’ are unconstitutional delegations of state authority to
self-interested private entities”—in other words, a constitutional challenge to the statute, not a
statutory construction claim. See Patel v. Texas Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d
69, 75–76 (Tex. 2015) (reaffirming rule that “sovereign immunity is inapplicable when a suit
challenges the constitutionality of a statute and seeks only equitable relief”).
Second, the Department asserts that the Association’s UDJA Claim is redundant
with its APA Claim and therefore is barred by the redundant remedies doctrine. See id. at 79
(“Under the redundant remedies doctrine, courts will not entertain an action brought under the
UDJA when the same claim could be pursued through different channels. . . . When a plaintiff
files a proceeding that only challenges the validity of an administrative rule, the parties are
bound by the APA and may not seek relief under the UDJA because such relief would be
redundant.”). But the Association could not bring its UDJA Claim challenging the
constitutionality of the relevant Texas Insurance Code provisions under section 2001.038 of the
APA; thus, the redundant remedies doctrine does not bar the Association’s UDJA claim. See id.
at 80 (“Here the [plaintiffs] challenge both rules as defined by the APA and statutes. Because
the [plaintiffs] cannot attack the constitutionality of the statutes pursuant to Section 2001.038 of
the APA, their UDJA claims are not barred by the redundant remedies doctrine.”).
Third, the Department argues that the Association “failed to assert a ‘viable’
constitutional theory that invokes the UDJA’s waiver for statutory-validity claims.” The
Department admits that “[b]ecause [the Association] is pursuing a facial challenge, it is true that
[the Association] was not obligated to allege facts demonstrating how the Insurance Code
provisions operate in practice.” Nevertheless, the Department claims that even though the
Association cited “the seminal private-delegation case in its petition,” “it failed to assert essential
11
facts” addressing Boll Weevil’s “eight-factor test to assess the validity of a private delegation of
governmental authority.” See Boll Weevil, 952 S.W.2d at 472. Relying on Andrade v. NAACP
of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. 2011), the Department argues that the Association’s
“conclusory private-delegation claim falls woefully short of presenting a viable statutory-validity
challenge to the four challenged Insurance Code provisions.” We disagree.
The Texas Supreme Court has explained that “Andrade stands for the
unremarkable principle that claims against state officials—like all claims—must be properly
pleaded in order to be maintained, not that such claims must be viable on their merits to negate
immunity” and that “our conclusion there simply followed a line of decision in which we held
that claims were not viable due to basic pleading defects.” Patel, 469 S.W.3d at 77 (citing
Andrade, 345 S.W.3d at 13–14); see Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tex. 2007) (“Texas
follows a ‘fair notice’ standard for pleading, in which courts assess the sufficiency of pleadings
by determining whether an opposing party can ascertain from the pleading the nature, basic
issues, and the type of evidence that might be relevant to the controversy.”); Texas Educ. Agency
v. American YouthWorks, Inc., 496 S.W.3d 244, 259 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016) (“We determine
a claim’s viability by considering the [plaintiffs’] pleadings in their favor and, if necessary,
reviewing the entire record to determine if any evidence supports subject-matter jurisdiction.”
(emphasis added)), aff’d sub nom. Honors Acad., Inc. v. Texas Educ. Agency, 555 S.W.3d 54
(Tex. 2018). Here, the Association provided fair notice in its pleadings of the type of challenge
it was bringing: a facial challenge to the specified Texas Insurance Code provisions “as
unconstitutional delegations of state authority to self-interested private entities.” See FM Props.
Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868, 878 (Tex. 2000) (“Because we are reviewing the
12
statute under a facial challenge, [the statute]’s constitutionality depends on whether the statute as
written, rather than as it operates in practice, passes the Boll Weevil factors.”).
Nor do we see how the Association’s facial constitutional challenge is unviable.
The Department concedes that the Association asserts that the statutes delegate governmental
authority to private entities but complains that the Association failed to analyze or address the
specific Boll Weevil factors in its petition, even though none of the factors is dispositive. See id.
at 875 (holding that “the importance of each factor will necessarily differ in each case”); Boll
Weevil, 952 S.W.2d at 472 (describing eight factors). The Department offers no authority that a
plaintiff is required to specifically address each of these eight factors in its pleadings to assert a
delegation claim and an analysis of the Boll Weevil factors in a facial constitutional challenge
primarily turns on the specific statutory and regulatory scheme, not on evidence and fact. See,
e.g., FM Props., 22 S.W.3d at 880–88 (analyzing statutory and regulatory scheme to determine if
Boll Weevil factors weigh for or against constitutionality of delegation). A plaintiff is required to
plead facts sufficient to show a waiver of immunity under the UDJA; the plaintiff is not required
to plead its legal arguments as to an analysis of the Boll Weevil factors. Cf. Amadi v. City of
Houston, 369 S.W.3d 254, 262 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (concluding
that plaintiff “sufficiently pleaded facts showing a waiver of immunity and that [the plaintiff] did
not have to plead any legal argument as to the construction of subsection 101.106(b)”).
Finally, even if the Boll Weevil factors were to weigh in favor of concluding that
the statutes as written are constitutional, this would not make the Association’s constitutional
UDJA Claim unviable in our jurisdictional inquiry; rather, this would go to the claim’s merits,
which we generally do not reach in a plea to the jurisdiction. See County of Cameron v. Brown,
80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002) (“In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, a court may not weigh
13
the claims’ merits but must consider only the plaintiffs’ pleadings and the evidence pertinent to
the jurisdictional inquiry.”); Blue, 34 S.W.3d at 554 (“A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea,
the purpose of which is to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted
have merit.”); Viable, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“Capable of succeeding.”). This
is not the type of viability challenge that courts have considered that would make a claim
incapable of succeeding—for example, when “a litigant’s couching its requested relief in terms
of declaratory relief does not alter the underlying nature of the suit” and “sovereign immunity
will bar an otherwise proper [U]DJA claim that has the effect of establishing a right of relief
against the State for which the Legislature has not waived sovereign immunity.” Texas Parks &
Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011); see, e.g., Spence v. State,
No. 03-17-00685-CV, 2019 WL 1868841, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 26, 2019, pet. denied)
(mem. op.) (concluding that because other courts “have exclusive jurisdiction over the substance
of the various aspects of appellants’ ultimate claim for relief” for compensation, appellants “did
not plead a viable UDJA claim to establish the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over those
claims”). We therefore disagree with the Department that the Association did not plead a viable
constitutional claim.
For these reasons, we overrule the Department’s second issue.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled the Department’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the
Department’s plea to the jurisdiction.
14
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: March 5, 2020
15