Under Texas law, if a government entity files a jurisdictional challenge and a judge denies it, the government has the right to an immediate interlocutory appeal, which automatically pauses all trial proceedings. Seeking to avoid a shutdown of the expedited case, attorneys for ATP asked Travis County District Judge Jessica Mangrum during a hearing to withhold her ruling and take the matter \u201cunder advisement\u201d until after the trial.<\/p>\n
![\"Texas](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/https:\/\/media.zenfs.com\/en\/aol_tampa_free_press_articles_160\/4abd4a5f60f537fabe2d21ce1038d861.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton<\/p>\n
According to the court record, ATP\u2019s counsel told the judge: \u201cIf you deny the plea tomorrow this case gets put on ice because they have an interlocutory appeal that they will file and under that statute it says that the whole proceeding is abated.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo you\u2019re asking me to not deny, but to take it under advisement and allow the trial to move forward and decide at trial whether or not they are correct\u2026?\u201d Judge Mangrum asked, later adding, \u201cI keep repeating it because it\u2019s a little odd to say please take this under advisement; shocking really.\u201d<\/p>\n
Despite her initial hesitation, the trial judge agreed to the request and called the case to trial without issuing a ruling. Paxton\u2019s office attempted to appeal anyway, arguing the judge\u2019s actions amounted to an implicit denial. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal because no formal written order existed.<\/p>\n
The Texas Supreme Court agreed that Paxton could not technically appeal a non-existent order, but chose to treat the state\u2019s petition as a request for a writ of mandamus\u2014an order forcing a government official to fulfill their duty.<\/p>\n
READ: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz Reveals GOP Fury Over Trump\u2019s $1.776 Billion \u2018Anti-Weaponization Fund\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cNothing about this scenario is as it should be,\u201d Chief Justice Blacklock wrote in the opinion. \u201cA court may not decline to rule on challenges to its jurisdiction, which should always be addressed before proceeding to the merits. A court may not withhold a ruling on the government\u2019s properly presented plea to the jurisdiction in order to prevent the government from appealing. And the government may not appeal from an interlocutory order that does not exist.\u201d<\/p>\n The high court emphasized that while the automatic stay rule can be used strategically by the state to cause delays, judges cannot simply bypass the law for the sake of efficiency.<\/p>\n \u201cUnder no circumstances may a court deny a governmental unit its interlocutory appellate rights by declining to resolve a properly presented jurisdictional challenge,\u201d the opinion stated.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to issue a formal ruling to grant or deny Paxton\u2019s plea. The high court noted it was expressing no view on the actual merits of Paxton\u2019s underlying jurisdictional arguments. Justice John P. Devine did not participate in the decision.<\/p>\n Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism<\/a>. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.<\/p>\n Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter<\/a> for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox<\/p>\n