In Re IDEA Public Schools v. the State of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed August 13, 2025.

In The
Fifteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 15-24-00100-CV

IN RE IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
201st District Court
Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-24-005018

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This original proceeding arises out of litigation over release of the A to F
school accountability rankings for Texas public schools for the 2024 school year. In
Morath v. Pecos-Barstow-Toyah Independent School District, et al., we held the trial
court erred by denying the Commissioner of Education’s plea to the jurisdiction
asserting immunity, reversed the trial court’s injunction prohibiting the
Commissioner from issuing those ratings, and dismissed the suit against him.1
In this related case, relator IDEA Public Schools intervened in the proceedings
below in support of the Commissioner, but the trial court “denied” the intervention
and refused to let IDEA call or question witnesses in the evidentiary hearing. Relator
seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the honorable Daniella DeSeta Lyttle, presiding
judge of the 201st District Court of Travis County, to vacate her orders (1)
dismissing relator’s petition in intervention, (2) overruling the Commissioner of
Education’s plea to the jurisdiction, and (3) temporarily enjoining him from
releasing the A to F accountability rankings for the 2024 school year. Relator also
seeks remand “to allow [it] to fully participate in the proceedings.”2
We first consider whether we have jurisdiction to decide this case.3 Texas
courts do not have jurisdiction to decide moot controversies.4 A case becomes moot
if, since the time of filing, “there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy
between the parties—that is, if the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”5 In the related appeal, we
dissolved the injunction preventing the Commissioner from issuing the ratings,
reversed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed the case against
him.6 Because our decision in Pecos affords all the relief for which Relator pleaded
and sought to intervene, this petition is moot.

1
Morath v. Pecos-Barstow-Toyah Indep. Sch. Dist., 2025 WL 1833467, at *9 (Tex. App.
(15th Dist.) July 3, 2025, no pet. h.).
2
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.
3
Although the parties do not raise the issue, we must “consider it sua sponte when our
jurisdiction seems in doubt.” Haynes & Boone, LLP v. NFTD, LLC, 631 S.W.3d 65, 71 (Tex.
2021).
4
Abbott v. Mexican Am. Legislative Caucus, Tex. House of Representatives, 647 S.W.3d
681, 689 (Tex. 2022).
5
Id. (citing Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012)).
6
Morath, 2025 WL 1833467, at *9.

2
We dismiss relator’s petition as moot.

Scott Brister
Scott Brister
Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.

3