See Our Solutions

In regulated and emerging industries, the honest answer is often 'it depends on who you ask' — and the agency's answer is not the last word. Texas agencies frequently act by memo, licensing position, or enforcement posture rather than clear rule, as the fights over Delta-8 hemp products and digital assets have shown. When an agency treats your product as illegal, you have options: seek a formal interpretation, engage in the rulemaking process, or go to court — Texas businesses have won injunctions keeping entire product categories on shelves while the courts sort out the law. The worst strategy is guessing; the gray area is navigable with counsel who has been through it.

Move on three tracks at once. First, the agency itself: comments in the rulemaking process, formal interpretation requests, and direct engagement often narrow a rule before it hardens. Second, the courts: Section 2001.038 of the Administrative Procedure Act allows a declaratory-judgment challenge to a rule's validity or applicability, and emergency injunctive relief can keep your business operating while the challenge proceeds. Third, the Legislature: Texas rewrites industry rules every two years, and a session strategy is often the difference between a temporary fix and a permanent one. Which track leads depends on your deadline — enforcement rarely waits.

For routine renewals, maybe not. For anything else, the three-tier system makes Texas alcohol law a minefield: manufacturers, distributors, and retailers each have separate lanes, and crossing one — or structuring a business that touches two — can cost you a permit. Licensing, protests, enforcement actions, label and marketing questions, direct-to-consumer issues (legal for wine, still not for beer and liquor), and credit-law traps all reward experience. Our work for craft brewers — including the federal court order that eliminated the 'dock bump tax' — comes from years inside these fights.

You may be able to resolve it informally — by asking the agency to promulgate a new rule or reinterpret an existing one, or by requesting a written interpretation from the Attorney General — or you can seek judicial review under Section 2001.038 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows a declaratory-judgment action if the rule (or its threatened application) interferes with a legal right or privilege. You can bring a 'validity' challenge (agency exceeded its authority, skipped proper APA procedures, or the rule is unconstitutional) or an 'applicability' challenge (the rule doesn't impose a duty on you); a procedural-noncompliance challenge must be filed within two years of the rule's effective date. You don't have to exhaust administrative remedies first, but suit must be brought in a Travis County district court with the agency named as a party.

State agencies like TxDOT, HHSC, TDI, TCEQ, or TABC — not just the Attorney General — investigate businesses to go after licenses, permits, and contracts, and to levy administrative penalties. First, take the notice, administrative subpoena, or document demand seriously and calendar every deadline; agency timelines are short and missing one can forfeit rights. Second, preserve all related documents and suspend any automatic deletion. Third, before responding or letting employees give interviews, engage counsel experienced with that agency — an early call to the agency's enforcement attorney can narrow the request, extend deadlines, and sometimes resolve the matter before formal proceedings like a SOAH contested-case hearing ever begin.

Start early: engage counsel who has tried cases at the State Office of Administrative Hearings, pull the specific statutes and agency rules that govern your proceeding, and calendar every deadline the moment the Notice of Hearing arrives. Build your record deliberately — the administrative law judge's Proposal for Decision is written from the evidence you put in, so line up witnesses, exhibits, and any needed discovery or depositions well before the hearing. Pursue settlement in parallel; many cases resolve by stipulation, agreed settlement, or consent order. And protect your appeal from day one: you have only 15 days to file exceptions to the Proposal for Decision, and a timely Motion for Rehearing is generally a prerequisite to judicial review.

A licensing or regulatory proceeding almost always has an early window for negotiation, so counsel should promptly contact the agency's enforcement attorney to try to resolve it before formal proceedings. If it isn't resolved, you can request a contested-case hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), where an administrative law judge issues a Proposal for Decision that the agency's governing body then acts on. If you're unhappy with the decision, filing a timely Motion for Rehearing is critical because it is generally a prerequisite to appeal, after which you may appeal to Travis County District Court and, if needed, up to the Texas Supreme Court.

Usually an agency must give you notice and an opportunity for a hearing before acting against your license. But several Texas licensing statutes allow temporary or emergency suspension where the agency decides public health, safety, or welfare demands it — with the full hearing coming only afterward. If that happens, you are entitled to a prompt post-suspension proceeding, and counsel can push for an expedited hearing, negotiate interim conditions that let you keep working, or seek emergency relief from a court. The first days matter most; get help before you respond.

First, file a timely Motion for Rehearing with the agency — it is generally a prerequisite to any appeal, and missing it usually ends the case. Once the decision is final, you may seek judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, typically by filing in Travis County district court within 30 days. Most license cases are reviewed under the 'substantial evidence' standard: the court asks whether the record reasonably supports the agency's decision, not whether the judge would have decided differently — so building a strong record at the SOAH hearing is what wins appeals later.

If the dispute is over performance or payment on a contract you already hold — not a lost bid — different rules apply. Against a state agency, sovereign immunity means you generally cannot simply sue for breach; Chapter 2260 of the Government Code sets the path: a timely written notice of your breach claim, mandatory negotiation with the agency, and, if that fails, a contested-case hearing at SOAH — suing in court usually requires the Legislature's permission. Against a city, county, or other local government, the Legislature has waived immunity for breach claims on written contracts for goods or services, subject to statutory damage limits, so those disputes can be litigated in court. Either way, a well-documented claim presented early — before positions harden — often resolves in negotiation for more than a lawsuit would ever recover.

You can always protest through the agency's own process — and those deadlines are brutally short, sometimes 5 p.m. the next business day. An appeal to district court is another matter: sovereign immunity blocks most lawsuits challenging a state agency's contract award, so the remedy is usually limited to the agency reviewing its own decision. The Legislature waived immunity for city procurement decisions, but not for state agencies. The narrow exception is an ultra vires suit against the responsible official for acting 'without legal authority' — in violation of a statute that constrains the official's discretion — where a court can award prospective injunctive relief halting the unlawful procurement, though not damages. A case pending at the Fifteenth Court of Appeals is testing right now how wide that exception really is.

Yes. State agencies grade vendors A through F and post Vendor Performance Reports (VPRs) to the Comptroller's TxSmartBuy system, and repeated unfavorable reports can lead to debarment for up to five years. Texas law gives a vendor at least two chances to challenge a negative VPR, but the protest deadlines under the Comptroller's rules are short, so act as soon as you see a bad report coming. Given what's at stake — eligibility for future state contracts — a negative VPR is worth fighting.

When a public information request implicates a third party's property or privacy interests, the TPIA lets that third party raise any applicable exception to disclosure with the Attorney General, in district court, or both. In practice the governmental body may withhold the information to seek an AG ruling and notify you, and you then get an opportunity to demonstrate to the AG that your information falls within an exception. If the AG concludes it should be released, Section 552.325 lets you file suit against the AG (and join the governmental body) to block release — but act quickly, because once the governmental body releases the information to the requestor, all is lost.

Yes — if the Attorney General rules that your information should be released, Section 552.325 of the TPIA permits you as the third party to file suit against the AG to prevent release, and the court decides anew whether the information is subject to disclosure. To keep records like trade secrets from being released, invoke exceptions such as Section 552.110 (trade secrets and commercial or financial information) or 552.101 (information made confidential by other law); since January 1, 2020, only governmental bodies — not third parties — may raise the old 'competition or bidding' exception in Section 552.104. Act fast, because if the information is released before suit is filed, the protection is lost.

Yes — action taken in violation of TOMA is voidable. If a city council, commissioners court, or state board took up your matter behind closed doors — an illegal executive session, a 'walking quorum,' or an item missing from the posted agenda — a court can declare the resulting vote void and stop the body from acting on it. An interested party, including a business hurt by the decision, can bring a civil suit for mandamus or an injunction under Section 551.142, and a prevailing plaintiff may recover costs and attorney fees. Act quickly: leverage is greatest before the decision is implemented and before the body ratifies it at a proper open meeting.

Yes. Cities can only charge impact fees within the strict limits of Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code — the fee must rest on valid land-use assumptions and a capital improvements plan, be calculated as the statute requires, and actually fund the improvements that justify it. Fees that exceed those limits, or are tacked onto permits and utility connections without the required study, can be challenged in court. And under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024), an impact fee out of proportion to your project's actual impact can be attacked as an unconstitutional exaction under the Takings Clause — in state or federal court. We litigate these fights for landowners and developers.

Yes — and that is usually where the real fight is. Senate Bill 2038 makes release from a city's ETJ mandatory: as the courts have put it, a valid petition is a matter of paperwork, not permission. Many cities have denied or ignored valid petitions anyway, kept regulating released land, or tried to pull it back into the ETJ while they challenge the law. In Elliott v. City of College Station, the Texas Supreme Court sent a clear message that cities cannot simply ignore SB 2038 while it is on the books. When a city stonewalls, litigation — declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the release and stopping the city's regulation — is how the right gets enforced. We have fought and won ETJ battles against Texas cities, including a summary-judgment victory over the City of Taylor.

Yes — this is exactly what Texas Local Government Code § 43.141 is for. When a city annexes your land, it must deliver the services in its own annexation service plan: water, sanitary sewer, fire protection, road maintenance. If the city collects your taxes but fails to deliver, a majority of the area's qualified voters can petition for disannexation — and if the city refuses, you can sue to force it. That is how our clients beat the City of Taylor: annexed in 2018, five years of empty promises, a dismissive denial of their petition, and in 2025 a Williamson County district court ruled the property must be disannexed. Cities must fish or cut bait — they cannot annex land, take the tax money, and leave you without services.