Supreme Court
Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs. v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc.
- Case number: 23-0192
- Legal category: Administrative Law
- Subtype: Judicial Review
- Set for oral argument: October 31, 2024
Case Summary
This case concerns the validity of an administrative rule governing immigration detention centers and the mootness and reviewability of the rule challenge.
In 2014, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement began to detain undocumented families with children at two immigration-detention centers in Texas. But a federal court ruled that ICE violated a consent decree requiring detained minors to be placed in facilities with appropriate state childcare licenses. After the ruling, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services promulgated Rule 748.7, establishing licensing requirements for family residential centers.
The advocacy group Grassroots Leadership, several detained mothers, and a daycare operator sued the Department to challenge Rule 748.7. The private operators of the two detention centers intervened. After the trial court declared the rule invalid, the court of appeals dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the detained mothers (and their children) sufficiently alleged concrete personal injuries traceable to the rule’s adoption.
On remand, the Department and private operators argued that the dispute is now moot because the plaintiff–detainees are no longer detained and are not reasonably likely to be detained at the centers again. The court of appeals agreed but applied a public‑interest exception to the mootness doctrine and affirmed the trial court’s judgment that Rule 748.7 is invalid because the Department lacked statutory authority to promulgate it.
The Department and the private operators petitioned for review, arguing that the rule challenge is moot, there is no public‑interest exception in Texas, and Rule 748.7 is valid. The Supreme Court granted the Department’s and the private operators’ petitions for review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.