Supreme Court

23-0644 - Kensington Title-Nev., LLC v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. 

Kensington Title-Nev., LLC v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs.

  • Case number: 23-0644
  • Legal category: Administrative Law
  • Subtype: Administrative Procedure Act
  • Set for oral argument: December 5, 2024

Case Summary

The Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity in a suit seeking a declaration about an administrative rule’s “applicability.” The issue in this case is whether the request for declaratory relief challenges a rule’s application (how the rule applies) as opposed to its applicability (whether the rule applies).

Kensington Title-Nevada, LLC acquired real property on which the occupant had abandoned stored radioactive waste. Kensington initiated decommissioning activities but stopped before completion. The Texas Department of State Health Services then fined Kensington for possessing the material without a license and for failing to decommission in a timely manner. Kensington challenged the fine through a formal administrative hearing. Concurrently, Kensington sued the Department requesting a declaration that the administrative rule could not be applied to force a real property owner like Kensington to accept liability for radioactive materials abandoned on its property. The Department filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that Kensington failed to invoke the APA’s immunity waiver because it only seeks a determination about the rule’s application, not its applicability. The trial court denied the Department’s plea, but the court of appeals reversed and dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

On petition for review, Kensington contends that the appeals court’s failure to apply the immunity waiver rests on an improper rewriting of the request for declaratory relief. The Department’s response argues that dismissal was proper because (1) the court’s analysis was correct; and (2) Kensington lacks standing for want of a redressable injury. As to the latter, the Department asserts that the administrative action was based on Kensington’s exercise of dominion and control over the regulated materials, not ownership of real property.

The Court granted the petition 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.