# The State of Texas and Kyle Madsen in His Official Capacity as Director of Right of Way v. Jrj Pusok Holdings, LLC

> Texas Supreme Court · June 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11341713

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 12, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hawkins
- **Judges:** Bland; Lehrmann; Devine; Busby; Huddle; Young; Young; Hawkins; Sullivan; Blacklock
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11341713

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Texas Health and Safety Code did not waive sovereign immunity, even though it provided a “meaningful cause of action against private mental health care facilities”
- holding that the Texas Health and Safety Code did not waive sovereign immunity for a wrongful-death claim brought against a hospital on behalf of a patient who committed suicide

## Opinion text

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 24-0447
══════════

The State of Texas and Kyle Madsen in his Official Capacity as
Director of Right of Way,
Petitioners,

v.

JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC,
Respondent

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

JUSTICE HAWKINS, joined by Justice Sullivan, and by Chief Justice
Blacklock except as to Part III(A), dissenting.

Since our State’s Founding, our Court has enforced the bedrock
principle, known as sovereign immunity, that private citizens may not
sue the State to redress private injuries unless the State has given its
express permission to be sued. That rule exists for good reason. A private
individual’s suit against the State is really a suit against all of us as
taxpayers. Every dollar the government spends defending a lawsuit or
paying a judgment to benefit one individual is a dollar that could have
been spent on schools, roads, and public safety to benefit us all.
Some individual claims vindicating certain rights are so
important to the fabric of our society that we accept that tradeoff. But
reasonable minds can and do disagree about where to draw the line—
which is why we insist that the Legislature, not courts, decides when to
waive sovereign immunity. In our system of democratic governance, our
elected representatives are the only ones authorized to balance the
competing interests of individuals seeking redress against the State and
the burdens their claims place on the public.
We have long insisted that to be operative, a legislative waiver of
sovereign immunity must be unmistakable. It need not be marked by
any particular magic words, but it must make unambiguous the
Legislature’s declaration that a suit against the State may proceed.
Anything less risks judicial overreach—the usurpation of the
Legislature’s exclusive prerogative to decide when private citizens may
bring suit against the State and burden us all to redress their private
individual grievances.
Today, the Court holds that Chapter 21 of the Property Code
waives immunity for repurchase claims. In reaching that decision, the
Court acknowledges that the statute contains none of the statutory
indicia that traditionally signal the waiver of immunity. It agrees that
the statute neither mentions “waiver” nor requires the State’s
participation—the two hallmarks of immunity waivers. It acknowledges
that the statutory scheme would have at least some effect without a
waiver. Nevertheless, the Court invokes various other considerations—
including the constitutional backdrop unique to property interests,

2
Chapter 21’s broader statutory context, and practical concerns—to
declare that immunity is waived.
Clear-statement rules exist in large part to obviate the need for
these searching multi-factor inquiries. When it comes to immunity
waivers, the analytical task should be simple: look for an unambiguous
declaration that the State may be sued. Is there such a declaration? If
so, then immunity is waived. Otherwise, it is not. That basic heuristic
should have made this case easy. This statute lacks an unmistakable
waiver of immunity, and so the only permissible answer is that no such
waiver exists.
The good news is that the Court’s approach today is expressly
limited to this particular statutory provision, which is born of unique
considerations (including a special constitutional backdrop) and
inherently distinct from virtually every other statutory right known to
our law. Today’s decision thus has no bearing on our sovereign-
immunity jurisprudence in any other context. Even still, I cannot join
the Court’s approach or outcome. Properly understood, the State is
immune to this suit. I would reverse the judgment below and render
judgment for the State.
I respectfully dissent.
I
I first review the principles of sovereign immunity that underlie
my analysis.
A
Sovereign immunity is “an established principle of jurisprudence
in all civilized nations.” Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex.

3
2006) (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 529 (1857)). Its origins
predate the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. See ALEXANDER
HAMILTON, THE FEDERALIST NO. 81, at 487 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961)
(“It is inherent in the nature of [a State’s] sovereignty not to be amenable
to the suit of an individual without its consent.”); see also WILLIAM
BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 214 (4th ed.
1876) (“[N]o suit or action can be brought against the sovereign, even in
civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him.”). The
U.S. Supreme Court has described “States’ immunity from suit” as “a
fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before
the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today.” Alden
v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999).
Our Court’s embrace of sovereign immunity goes back to our
State’s earliest days. As we recognized in 1847, “no state can be sued in
her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner
indicated by that consent.” Hosner v. DeYoung, 1 Tex. 764, 769 (1847).
In the 180 years since, we have ratified this foundational aspect of our
sovereignty generation after generation. See, e.g., Taylor v. Hall, 9 S.W.
148, 149 (Tex. 1888) (“The state cannot be sued without its consent,
either directly or indirectly.”); State v. Isbell, 94 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Tex.
[Comm’n Op.] 1936) (“[A] state cannot be sued without its consent, and
then only in the manner, place, and court or courts designated.”); Tex.
Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999) (“[I]mmunity
from suit bars an action against the state unless the state expressly
consents to the suit.” (citing Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401,
405 (Tex. 1997) and Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Brownsville Navigation Dist.,

4
453 S.W.2d 812, 813 (Tex. 1970))); Nazari v. State, 561 S.W.3d 495, 500
(Tex. 2018) (“The common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits
suits against the state unless the state consents and waives its
immunity.” (citing Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232, 238 (Tex. 2017)).
We have adhered to this principle for our entire history for many
reasons, two of which bear emphasis here. The first involves the
separation of powers—the “preserv[ation] [of] executive and legislative
power from judicial encroachment.” Univ. of the Incarnate Word v.
Redus, 602 S.W.3d 398, 404 (Tex. 2020) (citing cases). The second
implicates public policy. Sovereign immunity “shield[s] the public from
the costs and consequences of improvident actions of their
governments.” Tooke, 197 S.W.3d at 332. In this sense, sovereign
immunity “protect[s] the public treasury.” Redus, 602 S.W.3d at 404.
After all, when the government is sued, we all collectively, through our
government, must expend resources litigating cases and paying
judgments to satisfy one individual’s grievance. See Brown & Gay Eng’g
v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117, 121 (Tex. 2015).
Safeguarding the public fisc is an important part of sovereign
immunity, but the doctrine has never been limited to that purpose alone.
See Nazari, 561 S.W.3d at 507-08. The doctrine broadly preserves “the
relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of
government,” irrespective of purely financial concerns. Rusk State Hosp.
v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 97 (Tex. 2012); Fed. Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 414-

5
16 (Hecht, J., concurring) (outlining modern political and financial
reasons for sovereign immunity). 1
In light of the important values sovereign immunity protects, our
State’s judiciary has been particularly careful to ensure that the State
has waived its inherent immunity anytime we encounter a suit naming
the State as a defendant. And we have insisted time and again that
because the decision to waive immunity requires the balancing of
competing policy interests, immunity waivers are the prerogative of the
Legislature, not courts. Our Legislature, as the branch that decides how
to allocate resources and money, is the branch that decides which harms
merit a judicial remedy. This Court may not, consistent with the
separation of powers, determine which claims waive sovereign
immunity and which do not—regardless of how we ourselves might
weigh the competing public-policy concerns. See City of Galveston v.
State, 217 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Tex. 2007) (“Th[e] heavy presumption in
favor of immunity arises [in part] from separation-of-powers
principles.”). When we set aside that rule, we usurp power allocated
elsewhere and commit our State’s resources in ways reserved to the

1 The Court rightly rejects Respondent’s argument that this suit against

the State of Texas does not implicate sovereign immunity at all because it does
not threaten the public fisc. We have long held that “immunity is implicated
by any suit that seeks to control governmental action.” Hays St. Bridge
Restoration Grp. v. City of San Antonio, 570 S.W.3d 697, 704 (Tex. 2019). Here,
Respondent seeks to “control government action” by forcing a sale of land.
Anyway, Respondent’s argument fails on its own terms. Its live petition
expressly asserts that “Plaintiff is entitled to damages.” And it expressly
demands the State pays its “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” Moreover,
there is no denying that a suit against the State of Texas requires the
expenditure of the resources of the State of Texas, regardless of the relief
ultimately awarded.

6
political branches. See Rattray v. City of Brownsville, 662 S.W.3d 860,
865 (Tex. 2023) (observing that plaintiffs can overcome immunity “only
by demonstrating that the legislature, as the branch of government
constitutionally empowered to manage the State’s financial affairs, has
waived immunity by statute”); Seay v. Hall, 677 S.W.2d 19, 25 (Tex.
1984) (“[I]t would be a usurpation of our powers to add language to a law
where the legislature has refrained.”).
B
The State always retains the power to waive its sovereign
immunity if and when it so chooses. Relevant here, we have traditionally
recognized two paths through which the State can and does forego
immunity to suit: legislative pronouncement, and constitutional
implication.
1
The State’s standard path for waiving sovereign immunity is
through an unambiguous declaration by the Legislature. As we have
explained, the Legislature retains the power to consent to suits, but
courts will not give effect to that consent unless it is “clear and
unambiguous.” Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 500 S.W.3d 380, 384
(Tex. 2016) (quoting TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.034)). Only “express[]
consent[]” suffices. Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 638.
This test is inflexible. Even when our Court might otherwise be
sympathetic to a type of claim or a particular plaintiff, we have declined
to find a waiver of immunity when the Legislature has not provided the
clear language our precedents require. In Hillman v. Nueces County, 579
S.W.3d 354, 361 (Tex. 2019), for example, we held that the Michael

7
Morton Act did not waive a county’s immunity for a wrongful-
termination claim brought by a former prosecutor who was fired after
he refused to withhold allegedly exculpatory evidence. However
disappointing some might find that result as a matter of policy, we held
firm: no express statutory language equals no waiver. See also Wichita
Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 693-94 (Tex. 2003) (holding
that the Texas Health and Safety Code did not waive sovereign
immunity for a wrongful-death claim brought against a hospital on
behalf of a patient who committed suicide).
Our jurisprudence is rife with examples of statutes that we
declared inadequate for purposes of an immunity waiver. For example,
in Taylor, we held that a statute providing that “[a] treatment facility
. . . is liable” for violating the statute and that “[a] person who has been
harmed by a violation may sue” does not waive immunity. Id. at 698
(emphases omitted) (quoting TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 321.003(a),
(b)). In Texas Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley, we
held that Section 203.058 of the Transportation Code—which provides
that “adequate compensation . . . shall be made” when the State’s
acquisition “deprive[s] the agency of a thing of value”—does not waive
immunity. 146 S.W.3d 637, 641 (Tex. 2004) (quoting TEX. TRANSP.
CODE § 203.058(a)). We explained that “[n]othing in the plain language
of section 203.058 indicates the Legislature intended to waive immunity
in situations like the one presented.” Id. at 642. And in Tooke, we held
that “sue and [or] be sued,” “[im]plead and [or] be impleaded,” and other
similar phrases, without more, did not waive immunity. 197 S.W.3d at
333-42 (quoting TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 51.075).

8
What gets the job done? Consider one good example from the same
subject matter relevant here—property rights. The Property Rights Act
provides that “[s]overeign immunity to suit and liability is waived and
abolished to the extent of liability created by this chapter.” TEX. GOV’T
CODE § 2007.004(a). So does the Texas Tort Claims Act, in nearly
identical language. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.025(a)
(“Sovereign immunity to suit is waived and abolished to the extent of
liability created by this chapter.”). And so does a different provision of
the Property Code, which provides that “[t]he state’s immunity from suit
without consent is abolished with respect to suits brought under this
section”—namely, appeals of Comptroller decisions regarding claims for
unclaimed property. TEX. PROP. CODE § 74.506(a), (c). Where the
Legislature uses such explicit waiver language, “we have had little
difficulty recognizing a waiver of immunity from liability.” Taylor, 106
S.W.3d at 696.
2
Our precedents recognize an additional—albeit narrow—path by
which the State has surrendered its immunity to certain types of claims.
In a line of cases exemplified by Steele v. City of Houston, 603 S.W.2d
786, 791 (Tex. 1980), we have recognized that the Takings Clause itself
operates as a waiver of immunity for inverse-condemnation claims. I will
document that precedent in order to illustrate that this line of cases
offers no interpretive force as to the statutory-interpretation question
before us today.
Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution provides, in
relevant part, that “[n]o person’s property shall be taken, damaged, or

9
destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation
being made, unless by the consent of such person.” TEX. CONST. art. I,
§ 17(a). By prohibiting takings absent public use and just compensation,
our Takings Clause plays a critical role in protecting “the sacred and
inviolable rights of private property,” a natural right that preexists our
government. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 505 (2005)
(Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 1
COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 134-35 (1765)); Eggemeyer v.
Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1977); see also Steele, 603 S.W.2d
at 789 (“Uncompensated governmental taking of property was unlawful
before Magna Carta.”).
The text is built around the core injuries “taken, damaged, or
destroyed.” TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17(a). It ties those injuries to a “public
use.” Id. And most critically, it provides that when a taking, damage, or
destruction is perpetrated, the property owner “shall” be entitled to
“adequate compensation.” Id. § 17(a), (d). In that sense, our Takings
Clause is foundational but commonplace, mimicking that of the federal
Constitution and most of our sister States. 2

2 U.S. CONST. amend. V (“[N]or shall private property be taken for public

use, without just compensation.”); see also, e.g., CONN. CONST. art. I, § 11 (“The
property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation
therefor.”); LA. CONST. art. I, § 4(B)(1) (“Property shall not be taken or
damaged by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes
and with just compensation paid to the owner or into court for his benefit.”);
OKLA. CONST. art. II, § 24 (“Private property shall not be taken or damaged for
public use without just compensation.”); IOWA CONST. art. I, § 18 (“Private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first being
made . . . .”); MICH. CONST. art. X, § 2 (“Private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in
a manner prescribed by law.”).

10
Virtually all of our Takings Clause jurisprudence turns on those
core elements that describe a constitutional injury. We have assessed
whether a taking was really for a “public use.” See, e.g., Hous. Auth. of
City of Dall. v. Higginbotham, 143 S.W.2d 79, 83-85 (1940); KMS Retail
Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett, 593 S.W.3d 175, 182 (Tex. 2019). We have
analyzed whether some regulatory action is really a taking at all. See,
e.g., Westgate, Ltd. v. State, 843 S.W.2d 448, 453 (Tex. 1992); City of
Baytown v. Schrock, 645 S.W.3d 174, 180-81 (Tex. 2022). We have
considered whether “damage” to property was significant enough to
implicate the Takings Clause. See, e.g., State v. Heal, 917 S.W.2d 6, 10-
11 (Tex. 1996). We have evaluated what constitutes “adequate
compensation.” See, e.g., Uselton v. State, 499 S.W.2d 92, 96-99 (Tex.
1973). These cases are multifaceted, but they share a common theme:
each turns on the core constitutional injury expressly identified in the
text of the Takings Clause.
While nothing in that text refers to immunity or causes of action,
our Court has interpreted the Takings Clause to waive the State’s
immunity for a certain narrow class of claims that implicate the
constitutional injury at the Clause’s heart. The rationale is set out most
clearly in Steele. See 603 S.W.2d at 791. There, police officers for the City
of Houston destroyed a home while pursuing a criminal suspect. Id. at
789. The landowner (and his renters) sued the City to recover costs for
the damage to the home and their belongings. Id. at 788.
The plaintiffs lacked an “enabling statute” for this claim, which
arose not as the result of the condemnation process, but rather from a
police action without a formal “transfer of property rights.” Id. at 790.

11
We nevertheless allowed the claim to proceed. We held that under these
circumstances, the Takings Clause “itself is the authorization for
compensation for the destruction of property and is a waiver of
governmental immunity for the taking, damaging or destruction of
property for public use.” Id. at 791. We specifically tied this waiver of
immunity to the constitutional text, noting that the destruction the
police inflicted on the home is exactly the injury the Takings Clause
describes. We summarized: “It was a claim for the destruction of
property, and governmental immunity does not shield the City of
Houston.” Id. In short, the plaintiffs presented a classic constitutional
injury, and we in turn found a constitutional remedy with a
constitutional waiver.
Various post-Steele cases ratified that approach—but only when
the government action at issue implicated the Takings Clause’s
constitutional injury. For example, in State v. Biggar, we held that the
State’s denial of an easement exchange—which caused a decrease in the
plaintiffs’ land value—resulted in compensable damages that were
actionable as an inverse-condemnation claim because “[i]f government
is able to use its power as sovereign to adjust the value of ‘just
compensation,’ the constitutional protection is rendered meaningless.”
873 S.W.2d 11, 12, 14 (Tex. 1994). In Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford
Estates Limited Partnership, a town conditioned its approval of a
subdivision development on the rebuilding of an asphalt road with
concrete. 135 S.W.3d 620, 623-24 (Tex. 2004). The town rejected the
developer’s request for an exception, and the developer ended up paying
nearly $500,000 to rebuild the road. Id. at 624. We held that the exaction

12
imposed by the town constituted a taking for which the developer was
entitled to compensation. Id. at 645.
Similarly, in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Gragg, we held
that a regional water district committed a taking when its actions—
releasing water through a reservoir’s floodgates—caused extensive
flooding to the plaintiffs’ land. 151 S.W.3d 546, 549-55 (Tex. 2004). In
Texas Department of Transportation v. Self, we allowed an inverse-
condemnation claim to proceed where the State cut down trees on the
plaintiffs’ property outside the scope of the State’s easement and refused
to compensate the plaintiffs for the cost of replacing the trees. 690
S.W.3d 12, 17-18, 32 (Tex. 2024). And most recently, in Commons of
Lake Houston, Ltd. v. City of Houston, we held that a regulatory taking
can occur even when the regulation at issue—an ordinance requiring
construction two feet above the floodplain—resulted from a valid
exercise of police power and was intended to ensure compliance with the
National Flood Insurance Program. 711 S.W.3d 666, 681, 684 (Tex.
2025).
All of these cases illustrate the Steele principle: when the
government denigrates the core prohibition of the Takings Clause and
inflicts a constitutional injury, the Constitution itself supplies a cause
of action and a remedy. We have declared that there is no need in these
situations for the Legislature itself to step in with its own statutory
immunity waiver. Whether out of respect for the fundamental rights the
Takings Clause protects or to exalt the social contract between
government and citizen, our jurisprudence consistently—but
narrowly—holds that the Constitution’s categorical exclusion of core

13
takings claims from sovereign immunity has always been limited to just
that: the taking, damaging, or destruction of property absent public use
or adequate compensation. By contrast, government actions that are
merely adjacent to or downstream of takings are subject to immunity
absent express legislative waiver. See, e.g., TEX. GOV’T CODE
§ 2007.021(a) (authorizing a property owner to bring suit “to determine
whether the governmental action . . . results in a taking under this
chapter”); id. § 2007.004(a) (“Sovereign immunity to suit and liability is
waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by this chapter.”).
II
With that backdrop in mind, I now turn to the statute before us.
I would hold it does not waive immunity because it lacks the “clear and
unambiguous” language necessary to effectuate an immunity waiver.
See Sampson, 500 S.W.3d at 38. I respectfully disagree with the Court’s
contrary conclusion.
A
Section 21.101 of the Property Code provides that a person “is
entitled to repurchase [] property” under certain circumstances, and
that “[a] district court may determine all issues in any suit regarding
the repurchase of a real property interest acquired through eminent
domain by the former property owner or the owner’s heirs, successors,
or assigns.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.101(a), (c). Additionally, Section
21.003 provides:
A district court may determine all issues, including
the authority to condemn property and the assessment of
damages, in any suit:

14
(1) in which this state, a political subdivision of this
state, a person, an association of persons, or a corporation
is a party; and
(2) that involves a claim for property or for damages
to property occupied by the party under the party’s
eminent domain authority or for an injunction to prevent
the party from entering or using the property under the
party’s eminent domain authority.

Id. § 21.003.
It is immediately obvious that this text lacks two critical
ingredients. First, there is no reference to waiver. This is an important
omission because when the Legislature wishes to waive immunity, it
says so by, for example, labeling the provision “Waiver of Immunity.”
E.g., TEX. GOV’T CODE § 554.0035; see also id. § 2007.004(a) (“Sovereign
immunity to suit and liability is waived and abolished to the extent of
liability created by this chapter.”); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 101.025(a) (“Sovereign immunity to suit is waived and abolished to the
extent of liability created by this chapter.”); TEX. PROP. CODE § 74.506(c)
(“The state’s immunity from suit without consent is abolished with
respect to suits brought under this section.”). Second, nothing in the text
makes the State a necessary party. True immunity waivers expressly
declare that “[t]he state shall be made a party.” E.g., TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE § 571.0167(b). This statute says no such thing.
The closest the text comes is a single phrase that refers to a
district court “determin[ing] all issues.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.003. But
that is a classic jurisdictional grant, not a waiver of immunity. The
“determine all issues” phrase simply confirms that a district court has
jurisdiction to decide issues in suits already properly before it—such as,
for example, a repurchase suit brought against a private entity that

15
acquired land through eminent domain, id. § 21.101(c), or an inverse-
condemnation claim, id. § 21.003(1); TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17(a). Our
precedents have always distinguished between a grant of jurisdiction
and a waiver of immunity, and they make clear that the language we
see here exemplifies the former. See, e.g., In re Nestle USA, Inc., 359
S.W.3d 207, 212 (Tex. 2012) (holding that the “grant of jurisdiction to
this Court” in the Texas Franchise Tax Act “is not a clear and
unambiguous waiver of immunity”); Harris Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Tomball
Reg’l Hosp, 283 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. 2009) (explaining that “sue and
be sued” language “anticipates the district’s involvement in civil
proceedings of some nature at some point, but it does not address
immunity from suit”). 3
In short, the text is missing the key ingredients we expect to see
in an immunity waiver, and the only phrase it does supply addresses
something different. We should easily conclude, consistent with our
precedents, that Section 21.101 does not waive the State’s immunity.
B
The Court nevertheless holds that “the State has no immunity
from Chapter 21 [repurchase] claims.” Ante at 26. The Court concedes
that the traditional indicia of an immunity waiver are absent. It
nevertheless finds a waiver by weaving together three extraneous

3 The Court calls my invocation of Nestle “misplaced” because the
statutory provision in that case used the word “jurisdiction,” whereas
Section 21.003 uses the phrase “determine all issues.” But Section 21.003 is
situated in Subchapter A, which is entitled “Jurisdiction.” Cf. TEX. GOV’T CODE
§§ 311.023(7), .024.

16
considerations: constitutional background, context, and practical
concerns. I will unpack each.
1
The first thread in the Court’s reasoning is the constitutional
background of this statutory scheme. While the Court does not (and
could not) claim that the Constitution itself waives immunity for
statutory repurchase claims, it nevertheless insists that it “cannot
ignore Chapter 21’s constitutional overlay, requiring that the State take
property only for public use.” Ante at 20. The Court does not specify how
much work this consideration is doing. But because the Court gives it at
least some weight, I will explain why, in my view, the constitutional
background has no meaningful bearing on the particular question before
us today.
The injury Respondent identifies—a price difference between
current market value and original sale value in connection with the
attempted repurchase of land previously sold to the State—is distinct
from the type of injuries for which the Takings Clause itself waives
immunity, and it does not follow that one informs the other. See supra
Part I.B.2. Even under Respondent’s own telling, the right it seeks to
vindicate is a very different concept from the injury at the heart of the
Takings Clause and the circumstances our previous precedents have
encountered. Respondent’s operative petition alleges that the State
“refused to comply with Sections 21.101, 21.102, and 21.103 of the Texas
Property Code” by not selling the surplus land at the price purchased by
the State. Respondent admits the State sent an “offer letter” to purchase
its land. The State thereafter initiated condemnation proceedings, but

17
Respondent later “entered into rule 11 agreements with the State to
settle the condemnation.” The record confirms that the parties
negotiated and agreed upon a sale. Respondent even acknowledges that
the State is now willing to sell the “surplus land” back to Respondent.
The sole injury, according to Respondent, is that the State wants to
charge “current market value as opposed to the price paid by the State”
in the original sale contract. None of this describes one of the core
constitutional injuries the Takings Clause addresses. See supra Part
I.B.2. 4
That repurchase claim differs from the Takings Clause not only
textually, but also temporally. By design, the repurchase statute comes
into play after the work of the Takings Clause is complete. The State
initiated condemnation proceedings in order to take land for a public
use. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.101(a). Those condemnation proceedings
ended in dismissal, after the parties negotiated and agreed to a sale. The
landowner received adequate compensation—some $682,000. At that
moment, when the check cleared and the deed changed hands, the
constitutional process ended. See City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC, 347 S.W.3d
231, 236 (Tex. 2011) (“[I]t is not the taking of property, as such, that
raises constitutional concerns, but the taking of property without just

4 The Court points out that the State’s offer to sell the property at its

current market value aligns with the statute’s pre-Kelo amendments. Ante at
24. That changes nothing: Respondent’s suit does not implicate a Takings
Clause injury. Moreover, the current version of the statute requires the entity
“to sell the property interest to the person for the price paid to the owner by
the entity at the time the entity acquired the property through eminent
domain.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.103(b). As I will explain below, Respondent’s
land was not acquired “through eminent domain.”

18
compensation.”) (citation omitted); see also City of San Antonio v.
Grandjean, 41 S.W. 477, 479 (Tex. 1897) (noting that “when a dedication
[to public use] is offered and accepted, it is complete, even before any act
is done by the representative of the public, which changes the position for
the worse” (emphasis added)). That sets this claim apart from Steele and
the other cases discussed above, all of which confronted a constitutional
injury identified in the text of the Takings Clause. See supra Part I.B.2.
The Court implies that the Takings Clause’s “public use”
requirement impacts its analysis today, but I do not see why it would.
The Takings Clause presents a fixed-in-time requirement—not a
permanent constitutional lien on all government property. Even if one
could conceive of a negotiated purchase as a taking, the public use
inquiry occurs at the moment of the transaction, not indefinitely into the
future. Put another way, once a taking is executed for a legitimate public
use, the constitutional requirements are satisfied, and the constitutional
inquiry ends. A constitutional injury does not spring into being years
later when the government’s plans change. 5
Our Court confirmed as much shortly after the Constitution of
1876 was ratified. In 1897, we held that a plaintiff could not reclaim
property taken by the State for which she had received compensation.
See Grandjean, 41 S.W. at 480. In reaching this conclusion, we
emphasized that a taking is complete when the transaction is

5 I of course am not addressing the rare situations involving dishonesty,

bad faith, or pretext in which the government falsely claims a public use it does
not actually intend. Nothing like that is alleged here, and no one has doubted
that the State intended in good faith at the moment of acquisition to put
Respondent’s property to public use.

19
effectuated: “when a dedication [to public use] is offered and accepted, it
is complete, even before any act is done by the representative of the public,
which changes the position for the worse.” Id. at 479 (emphasis added).
In other words, “[t]he conditional paramount title of the government
becomes absolute when the compensation is assessed or agreed upon
and paid.” Id. When a landowner “accepts as compensation a sum of
money, whatever the amount, and in whatever manner arrived at, his
property, to the extent of the taking, is expropriated and appropriated
to the use of the public.” Id. We confirmed that taken land does not need
to be put to public use in perpetuity: for “a public use[] to be effectual,”
it need not “be evidenced by the use of it having been continued for any
particular time.” Id. (quoting Oswald v. Grenet, 22 Tex. 94, 99 (1858)).
Rather, “[i]t is enough that there has been some clear, unequivocal act
or declaration of the proprietor evidencing an intention to set it apart for
a public use, and that others have acted in reference to, and upon the
faith of, such manifestation of intention.” Id. (emphasis added).
The interests the Takings Clause’s “public use” requirement
protects were satisfied and extinguished at the moment of transaction.
I would ascribe to it no meaningful interpretive force in deciding
whether Chapter 21 contains an express and unambiguous statutory
waiver of immunity for repurchase claims long after that transaction
concluded.
2
The second strand in the Court’s analysis is statutory context.
The Court zooms out to Chapter 21 writ large: “the Legislature nested
the repurchase statute within existing law governing eminent domain—

20
proceedings from which the State enjoys no immunity.” Ante at 15. In
my view, the fact that the Court needs to consider context only proves
that the statute lacks the clear and unambiguous waiver our precedents
demand.
No one doubts that context can inform meaning. See ANTONIN
SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF
LEGAL TEXTS 167 (2012). And we have noted that “[a]mong the core
contextual considerations that generate reliable constructions are the
surrounding provisions of a disputed text and how that text arises
within the statute's larger historical sweep.” Brown v. City of Houston,
660 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Tex. 2023) (citing READING LAW at 33). But as our
decision in Brown illustrates, we “proceed to examine the larger
statutory context” only after concluding that the “plain text” of the
particular provision at issue is indeterminate. Id. at 752. To resort to
context, as the Court does, is to concede that the text lacks the
unmistakably clear and unambiguous statement that our precedents
demand of an immunity waiver. See supra Part I.B.1. This is a sure sign
that the actual provision before us provides no clear statement waiving
immunity.
Even if we could draw some meaning from context, its
interpretive force here would be particularly weak. True, Chapter 21 is
nested among provisions about condemnation proceedings, which we
have recognized fall outside sovereign immunity. See Hidalgo Cnty.
Water Improvement Dist. No. 3 v. Hidalgo Cnty. Irrigation Dist. No. 1,
669 S.W.3d 178, 188 (Tex. 2023). But condemnation proceedings lack
immunity because the State is the plaintiff. Sovereign immunity is a

21
shield against being sued, not a barrier to suing. The absence of
immunity in condemnation proceedings tells us nothing about whether
immunity has been waived for a separate, subsequent claim brought by
a private party against the State. See generally id. The fact that the
Legislature, as a matter of good housekeeping or statutory hygiene,
placed the repurchase right near provisions involving eminent domain
cannot be read as an unmistakable immunity waiver.
Chapter 21’s other provisions prove exactly that. Section 21.0112,
for instance, requires a condemning entity to provide a “Landowner’s
Bill of Rights” to property owners before initiating condemnation. See
TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.0112. If a state agency fails to provide this
document, has immunity been waived for a private suit to enforce
compliance? Similarly, Section 21.0111 requires entities with eminent
domain authority to prepare certain reports. See id. § 21.0111. If TxDOT
files an incomplete report, can an injured party sue? And Section 21.023
requires condemning entities to disclose the former owner’s repurchase
rights in writing at the time of acquisition. See id. § 21.023. If TxDOT
fails to make this disclosure, has immunity been waived for a suit to
enforce the disclosure obligation? The answer to all three of these
questions is surely “no,” which confirms that mere placement in
Chapter 21 cannot provide the “clear and unambiguous” indicator our
precedents demand.
Moreover, when the Legislature wishes to waive immunity across
an entire statutory chapter, it can and does say so. See, e.g., TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.025(a) (“Sovereign immunity to suit is waived
and abolished to the extent of liability created by this chapter.” (emphasis

22
added)). And our precedents reject the wholesale importing of immunity
waivers across multiple provisions absent clear instructions. See Rusk,
392 S.W.3d at 94 (“The Legislature has waived governmental entities’
immunity from certain claims by means of the Tort Claims Act (TCA).
But the TCA embodies only limited waivers of sovereign immunity; it
does not abolish it.” (citations omitted)); Kerrville State Hosp. v. Clark,
923 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex. 1996) (rejecting a result that “would be
tantamount to abolishing governmental immunity, contrary to the
limited waiver the Legislature clearly intended”). All this is consistent
with the foundational and uncontroversial principle that waivers of
immunity must be construed narrowly. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.034.
3
Finally, the Court invokes practical concerns, claiming that the
repurchase statute would “serve[] virtually no purpose absent a waiver
of immunity.” Ante at 18. Of course, the broader logical consistency of a
statutory scheme is a relevant consideration in the interpretive task.
See, e.g., Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, 28 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2000).
But here, the repurchase statute makes adequate sense on its own terms
absent a waiver of immunity.
First, Section 21.101 still directs governmental conduct, even if it
does not provide a back-end option to sue the State when it fails to allow
for a repurchase. The State is subject to innumerable statutory
commands—procurement rules, environmental regulations,
employment standards, records retention requirements—enforceable
through internal oversight, legislative appropriations, audits, and
political accountability rather than private litigation. See Redus, 602

23
S.W.3d at 411 (“Political accountability is a vital counterweight to
sovereign immunity[.]”); CPS Energy v. Elec. Reliability Council of Tex.,
671 S.W.3d 605, 629 (Tex. 2023) (Boyd, J., dissenting) (“[T]he political
process often serves as a substitute for private lawsuits to deter
arbitrary and imprudent governmental action.”). There is nothing
remarkable about our Legislature imposing rules on our government
that cannot be enforced through private litigation, and we have held
repeatedly that the mere creation of a substantive right does not
necessarily waive immunity to enforce it. See, e.g., Taylor, 106 S.W.3d
at 700, 702 (holding that the Texas Health and Safety Code did not
waive sovereign immunity, even though it provided a “meaningful cause
of action against private mental health care facilities”); Sunset Valley,
146 S.W.3d at 641-44 (holding that a statute did not waive immunity to
enforce right to “adequate compensation” found in the Transportation
Code).
Second, the repurchase right binds private condemnors who lack
sovereign immunity. Railroads, pipelines, electric utilities, and others
possess legislatively granted condemnation authority. See, e.g., TEX.
TRANSP. CODE § 112.002(b)(5). When these private entities acquire
property through eminent domain and later abandon the public use,
Section 21 grants former landowners a right to sue, and the condemnors
cannot invoke sovereign immunity. We have relied on this exact
consideration in the past to declare that a statutory right still carries
“meaning” when it is “construed against an asserted waiver of
immunity.” Rolling Plains Groundwater Conservation Dist. v. City of
Aspermont, 353 S.W.3d 756, 759 (Tex. 2011) (citation omitted).

24
***
Today the Court holds that in this particular statutory context,
the Legislature waived immunity not by saying “immunity is waived” or
“the State is liable” or “the State is a necessary party,” but by placing a
statutory right in a particular code chapter, granting courts jurisdiction
over disputes arising under that right, and using the phrase “may
determine all issues.” That is no “clear and unambiguous” waiver. I thus
would conclude that Chapter 21 does not waive sovereign immunity and
end the analysis there.
III
Even if Chapter 21 waived sovereign immunity, Respondent did
not properly invoke that waiver. This property was not acquired
“through eminent domain”—the necessary prerequisite for the statutory
scheme to take effect. And Respondent sued in the wrong court. I
respectfully disagree with the Court’s contrary conclusions on each
point.
A
Section 21.101 operates on properties acquired “through eminent
domain.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.101(c). Respondent’s property was
acquired through a privately negotiated and mutually agreed upon sale,
not eminent domain. The State, therefore, does not occupy the land
under its “eminent domain authority,” the statute’s necessary
prerequisite. Id. § 21.003(2).
Honoring our duty to construe every word in the provision, see
e.g., City of San Antonio v. Realme, 731 S.W.3d 342, 349-50 (Tex. 2026),
we must place due weight on the word “through,” which traditionally

25
means “passage into and out of some . . . process.” Through, WEBSTER’S
THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (2002) (emphasis
added)). Another dictionary notes that “[p]rimarily through expresses
the general relations of passage from boundary to opposite boundary of
anything, penetration to all parts, continuance to the end of a period
. . . . Into, for subjection to some treatment, and then out of[.]” Through,
WEBSTER’S SECOND NEW INT’L DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (1954). Those
definitions indicate that for property to be “acquired through eminent
domain,” the eminent domain process must have not only begun—but
also concluded.
Here, it would be most natural to say that the State acquired the
property at issue “through purchase.” True, the condemnation process
began. But the negotiated sale is what effectuated the change in the
property’s legal status. And the Legislature itself treats condemnation
and purchase as distinct. The Transportation Code, for instance,
authorizes the Texas Transportation Commission to “acquire [an
interest in real property] by purchase . . . or by the exercise of eminent
domain, in the name of the state.” See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 203.051(a)(1)
(emphasis added). It could have done the same here, but it instead
limited the repurchase right to circumstances when eminent domain,
not “purchase,” does the actual work.
The distinction comports with standard usage, as a simple
analogy illustrates. Suppose the State charges a defendant with felony
bank robbery. The State gets an indictment and initiates criminal
proceedings. The jury is empaneled, and trial starts. The defendant
hears the government’s first witness—and realizes he is doomed. He

26
asks the court for a recess to work out a plea deal with the prosecutor.
The prosecutor offers a misdemeanor, which the defendant accepts, and
the court enters a corresponding judgment of conviction. Would any
ordinary speaker of English say that the defendant was “convicted
through a jury trial”? Of course not. The process started, the jury heard
some evidence, and the court rendered judgment. Any ordinary speaker
would say that the defendant was “convicted through a plea bargain.”
The jury in my hypothetical plays much the same role the State’s
eminent domain power plays in this case—a powerful incentive to settle,
but not the legal mechanism that effectuates the end result.
By consenting to the warranty deed, Respondent has effectively
conceded that the eminent domain process started but never finished.
The document itself expressly states that “[t]he consideration recited
herein represents a settlement and compromise by all parties as to the
value of the property herein conveyed in order to avoid ED proceedings
and the added expense of litigation.” (emphasis added). Respondent
agreed to a sale to prevent the very process it now claims occurred. The
State did not acquire the land “through” eminent domain—it acquired it
through a negotiated purchase. It thus was acting “within a color of right
under the contract”—the warranty deed—rather than within its
eminent domain powers, and therefore lacked “ ‘the requisite intent
under constitutional-takings jurisprudence.’ ” Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v.
Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829, 844 (Tex. 2010) (quoting
Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little–Tex Insulation Co. Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591,
598-99 (Tex. 2001)).

27
For these reasons, I would conclude Section 21.101 does not
encompass the claim Respondent seeks to assert. 6
B
Irrespective of the above, the State is entitled to judgment
because Respondent filed suit in the wrong court. We have always held
that immunity waivers may prescribe the form of the waiver, and when
the Legislature waives immunity subject to conditions, the failure to
strictly adhere to those conditions negates the waiver. See Nestle, 359
S.W.3d at 208 (“[S]tatutory prerequisites are conditions on the
legislative waiver of the State’s immunity from suit.”); Mission Consol.
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653, 660 (Tex. 2008) (“[T]he
Legislature . . . has consented to suits brought under the TCHRA,
provided the procedures outlined in the statute have been met.”
(emphasis added)). That principle forecloses Respondent’s suit.

6 The Court asserts in passing that its “approach coheres with” this

Court’s reasoning in Texas A&M University-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d
518 (Tex. 2002). Ante at 19. I do not take this observation to be doing any work.
In any event, the plurality decision in Lawson carries no relevance here. The
plaintiff, a former university faculty member, sued a university for violations
of the Whistleblower Act. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d at 518. The parties later settled,
and the plaintiff sued for breach of the settlement agreement. Id. at 519. The
university, invoking sovereign immunity, argued the suit was barred. Id. This
Court held that the university was not immune because “when a governmental
entity is exposed to suit because of a waiver of immunity, it cannot nullify that
waiver by settling the claim with an agreement on which it cannot be sued.”
Id. at 521. In this case, by contrast, the parties settled the State’s
condemnation lawsuit; sovereign immunity was not implicated in that initial
action because the State brought suit as the plaintiff. Moreover, unlike the
plaintiff in Lawson, Respondent has not alleged that the State breached any
contract.

28
The unheeded condition specifies what type of court may hear
these suits. Both Section 21.003 and Section 21.101, which provide the
statutory hooks for a purported immunity waiver, refer to the “district
court.” TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 21.003, 21.101(c). The Legislature has
proclaimed, in other words, that any immunity waiver that might exist
is limited to suits brought in district court. It is entirely reasonable for
the Legislature to route these important and complex suits that
implicate significant sovereign interests to district courts rather than
county courts at law. When a plaintiff tries to override that decision and
sue elsewhere, he falls outside the waiver.
Respondent sued in a county court at law, not a district court. See
id. The waiver does not extend to county courts at law. Respondent did
not adhere strictly to the “conditions on the legislative waiver.” Nestle,
359 S.W.3d at 208. Its claim thus necessarily fails.
Neither the Court nor Respondent offers a plausible solution to
this dispositive defect. The Court’s analysis is limited to whether, as a
matter of the jurisdictional limits in our Constitution’s Article V, a
county court at law has authority to hear this type of claim. But that
assumes the premise that immunity is waived. We need not reach the
question of constitutional limits on county courts at law because
Respondent did not comply with a prerequisite necessary for the waiver
to be effective. See TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 21.003, 21.101(c); Nestle, 359
S.W.3d at 208. Any legislative waiver is effective only when the plaintiff
complies strictly with its terms, including filing in the court the
Legislature has identified—an issue unrelated to the abstract question
of what types of claims can proceed in a county court at law. Respondent

29
did not comply with the terms of any waiver, and so its claim fails at the
outset.
Neither of Respondent’s proposed solutions is satisfactory. First,
Respondent claims that Sections 21.003 and 21.101(c) use a permissive
“may,” and thus permit—but do not require—district courts to hear
repurchase suits. But the State “cannot be sued without its consent, and
then only in the manner, place, and court or courts designated.” Isbell,
94 S.W.2d at 424 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also City of
Madisonville v. Sims, 620 S.W.3d 375, 379 (Tex. 2020) (explaining that
even where a statute waives immunity, “strict compliance with the
[statute’s] procedural requirements is required to bring a claim”). Even
if the repurchase statute “permits” the State to be sued in a district
court, the statute does not affirmatively permit such suits to be brought
in a county court at law.
Respondent next invokes Government Code Section 25.1032,
which grants “[a] county civil court at law in Harris County”
“jurisdiction” to “hear a suit for the recovery of real property.” TEX. GOV’T
CODE § 25.1032(a), (d)(6). But as its text makes obvious,
Section 25.1032(d)(6) is a run-of-the-mill jurisdictional grant. See AIC
Mgmt. v. Crews, 246 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2008) (labeling Section
25.1032 as a “jurisdictional grant to statutory county courts in Harris
County”). It does not even purport to (much less actually) modify or
excuse compliance with the separate provision in which Respondent
claims to find a waiver. Indeed, a neighboring provision allows county
civil courts at law to “hear a suit to recover damages for slander or
defamation of character,” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25.1032(d)(2), but this

30
language obviously does not waive immunity for slander suits brought
against the State.
Nor does Property Code Section 21.001—which provides that
“[d]istrict courts and county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction
in eminent domain cases”—waive immunity. TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.001.
As the Court correctly observes, Section 21.001 is a jurisdictional grant
that vests county courts at law with the power to hear “eminent domain
cases.” Ante at 25. However, as with Section 25.1032(d)(6), such
jurisdictional grants are not waivers of immunity. See supra Part II.A.
For these reasons, I would hold that even if Chapter 21 could be
read to waive immunity for repurchase suits, that waiver does not
extend to suits—like Respondent’s—brought in a county court at law.
IV
I would reverse the judgment below and render judgment for the
State. I respectfully dissent.

Kyle D. Hawkins
Justice

OPINION FILED: June 12, 2026

31

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11341713. Public record. Not legal advice.