Description: Lawsuit brought by the City of San Antonio to block potential charter amendments that would change governance of publicly-owned utility and require utility to implement policies to achieve climate goals.
Burns v. City of San Antonio
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/18/2021 Memorandum Opinion Download Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 07/21/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. 07/12/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by Appellate Office of the Attorney General. 07/07/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by appellee. 06/21/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by appellants. 05/21/2021 Motion Download Motion to dismiss and to expedite the appeal filed.
In re City of San Antonio
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/28/2021 Order Download Motion for new trial and plea to the jurisdiction denied. 02/23/2021 Motion Download Motion for new trial and plea to the jurisdiction filed. Two residents filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to enjoin the charter amendment process and that the City's suit did not have merit. 12/07/2020 Judgment Download Final judgment entered declaring public securities and ordinances legal, valid, and incontestable and permanently enjoining the filing of any proceeding contesting their validity. In 2020, City of San Antonio residents and non-profit organizations began gathering signatures to place a home rule charter amendment on the ballot to increase the size of the Board of Trustees of the City's wholly-owned utility, to establish an Advisory Commission to advise the Board, and to mandate energy policies "to meet the goals of the city's Climate Action and Adaptation Ordinance" and the Paris Climate Agreement. In a court filing, two of the residents said the amendment "would require a series of gradual changes to the City's energy policy to increase equity and to reduce fossil fuel emissions." In November 2020, the City filed an Expedited Declaratory Judgment Act action to adjudicate the legality, validity, and enforceability of public securities issued by the City in the form of electric and gas systems revenue bonds. The district court found that the City was entitled to a declaratory judgment declaring that the public securities and the ordinances authorizing them were legal, valid, and incontestable. The court declared that provisions of the ordinances were binding on the City for the period in which the debt obligations were outstanding, including provisions that vested management and control of the electric and gas systems in a five-member Board of Trustees and set the length of trustees' terms.