Justices on the highest civil court in Texas return to the courtroom this week, where they’ll hear the first arguments in a series of cases that could set important legal precedents in hot-button political and cultural issues this year.
Those include cases that could have significant ramifications for the state’s hemp industry, the state’s near-total abortion ban and the City of Austin’s dreams of a light-rail system.
The court will also rule in several cases argued last year, including a battle for records concerning an alleged violation of the state's ban on gender-affirming care for minors and whether a popular line of oral nicotine products should be subject to tobacco taxes.
Justices have yet to officially rule in Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuits filed in August asking the high court to vacate the seats of Houston Rep. Gene Wu and other Democratic lawmakers who left Texas to try and block the passage of new congressional maps favoring Republicans.
And 2026 is set to be an eventful year for the court itself. Four justices — Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, Justice Brett Busby, Justice James Sullivan and Justice Kyle Hawkins — will be on the GOP midterm ballot. All but Busby were appointed to their positions last year by Abbott, and they must run for election to keep them.
The fate of delta-8
The Texas Department of State Health Services issued a notice in 2021 classifying any amount of delta-8 THC — an intoxicating chemical compound found in the hemp plant, milder than delta-9 — as a Schedule I controlled substance. Schedule I substances are defined at the federal and state level as drugs with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, and possessing or distributing them has criminal consequences.
This was after the 2018 Farm Bill redefined "hemp" and removed cannabis products with less than 0.3% delta-9 THC from the federal Schedule I. Texas adopted those definitions the next year.
Sky Marketing Corp., doing business as Austin-based hemp retailer Hometown Hero, and other businesses sued DSHS to prevent its rule change from going into effect. The company alleges DSHS, under former commissioner John Hellerstedt, unlawfully reclassified hemp products without a required public hearing.
Sky Marketing also alleges enforcing the rule would unlawfully ban the production, manufacturing, sale and use of all hemp products in the state and significantly hurt the state’s multibillion-dollar hemp industry.
After an Austin trial court issued an injunction preventing the DSHS rule from taking effect and an appeals court backed that move, DSHS appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
The hemp industry has undergone significant legislative and regulatory changes since the lawsuit began. After a total ban on THC products failed to pass during the 2025 legislative session, the governor issued an executive order that generally permitted the sale of THC in Texas but banned businesses from selling it to minors.
Then, as part of legislation that ended the government shutdown in November, Congress banned the sale of hemp products with more than 0.4% THC. The ban is set to take effect later this year.
And in December, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that directed federal agencies to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug — but it didn’t legalize the marijuana or approve it for recreational use.
These external developments delayed oral arguments and prompted the Texas Supreme Court to ask the parties to weigh in on whether oral arguments should proceed. Both parties agreed that, while the federal ban could eventually force DSHS to adjust its scheduling of hemp, those changes don't currently affect the lawsuit.
DSHS has now proposed a set of state rules that would keep edible hemp products containing delta-8 legal but redefine how THC is measured and, according to hemp business owners, dramatically raise costs for industry members. Those rules could take effect later this month.
The court will hear the case Jan. 14.
Texas' abortion 'bounty hunter' law
Texas’ Senate Bill 8 of 2021 — also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act — bans abortions after about six weeks, except in medical emergencies. Private citizens can enforce the law by suing medical professionals who allegedly provide abortions after cardiac activity is detected in the fetus, or anyone who aids and abets in such a procedure.
The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, a Texas-based abortion access nonprofit, allegedly helped at least one pregnant woman obtain an abortion in violation of SB 8, according to court records. Jack County resident Sadie Weldon filed a petition in court in 2022 in an attempt to get more information on the organization’s alleged SB 8 violation. Jonathan Mitchell, one of the architects behind SB 8, is part of Weldon's legal team.
The Lilith Fund then sued Weldon, seeking a declaration that SB 8 is unconstitutional and seeking to temporarily stop Weldon from pursuing legal action against the organization. Weldon is trying to dismiss the lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, alleging the Lilith Fund’s suit was an attempt to hinder her constitutional right to petition.
Weldon’s case arrived at the Texas Supreme Court after the Jack County trial court and the Second Court of Appeals ruled against Weldon, finding the TCPA doesn’t apply in her case.
The Texas Supreme Court will hear the case Jan. 14.
Gender transition regret
Tarrant County resident Soren Aldaco began the process of transitioning as a teen. It culminated in her taking testosterone and ultimately getting a double mastectomy when she was 19, which left her with painful complications, according to court records.
Aldaco then stopped her transition, attributing her issues with gender identity to a troubled adolescence and external influence. She sued several of the doctors and facilities that assisted her during the process for medical negligence in 2023, alleging the medical professionals recklessly pressured her into transitioning.
The Fort Worth trial court and the Second Court of Appeals sided with the defendants, ruling Aldaco’s claims were filed too late under the Texas Medical Liability Act, after which she appealed.
The Texas Supreme Court will hear the case Feb. 11.
Austin light rail plans
The City of Austin is asking the courts to let it move forward with its plans to build a light rail system — a plan Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging over concerns that the project will be an unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars.
More than half of Austin voters approved funding in 2020 for a transportation initiative called Project Connect, which includes building a new light rail system in the city. But a group of Austin taxpayers sued in 2023, challenging the project’s funding structure.
Their argument was based on a nonbinding legal opinion Paxton issued that year stating maintenance and operations tax revenue can’t be used to pay debts like bonds.
The city and Austin Transit Partnership, the corporation overseeing the project, sued in 2024 seeking declarations that they could collect and spend taxes to implement the light-rail system, and ATP can issue bonds to fund the system.
The attorney general filed a plea arguing the trial court doesn't have jurisdiction to take up the case and made the same arguments as his 2023 opinion. Just as a trial was set to begin in the case, Paxton filed an appeal, arguing the Travis County judge improperly denied his challenge.
The 15th Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, landing the case in front of the high court.
The Texas Supreme Court will hear the case Feb. 10.
SpaceX and beach rights
Environmental groups Save RGV and Sierra Club and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas are suing Cameron County, Paxton and Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham in separate cases over SpaceX’s operations on a small beach at the southernmost tip of the state.
For more than a decade, Texas has allowed Cameron County and the General Land Office to temporarily close Boca Chica Beach in Brownsville to allow Elon Musk’s aerospace company to conduct space flight activities. The three groups sued in 2022, alleging the law that allows SpaceX to close down Boca Chica Beach violates the rights to public beach access guaranteed in the Texas Constitution.
SpaceX has been entangled in a series of legal challenges over its operations in Texas — specifically the alleged environmental hazards posed by the company’s rocket launch program.
Save RGV sued Musk’s company in federal court after federal and state regulators found the company discharged tens of thousands of gallons of industrial wastewater into the environment with each rocket launch. When Save RGV ultimately dropped its suit, a board member for the environmental group said it was because the TCEQ granted SpaceX a permit that made the lawsuit moot.
In September, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas and environmental preservation groups that claimed the Federal Aviation Administration didn’t thoroughly assess the environmental impacts of SpaceX’s rocket launches.
The Texas Supreme Court will hear the cases March 5.
Toluwani Osibamowo is KERA’s law and justice reporter. Got a tip? Email Toluwani at tosibamowo@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
