The big picture
Austinites voted overwhelmingly in favor of 2022's Proposition A to stop police from issuing citations or making arrests for most low-level marijuana offenses. That election came after the police department ended its enforcement of misdemeanor possession charges in 2020, a change city officials previously pressed for.
Austin is one of several cities statewide where ballot measures to halt marijuana enforcement were approved by residents while the drug remains illegal in Texas. Attorney General Ken Paxton then sued several including Austin over the adoption of such ordinances by city officials he labeled "pro-crime extremists."
"This unconstitutional action by municipalities demonstrates why Texas must have a law to ‘follow the law.’ It’s quite simple: the legislature passes every law after a full debate on the issues, and we don’t allow cities the ability to create anarchy by picking and choosing the laws they enforce," Paxton had said in a statement.
A district court judge ruled against the state in 2024, but Paxton appealed. The 15th Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in February, and on April 24, Justice Scott K. Field issued an opinion from the three-judge panel reversing the lower court's decision and siding with the state's push for a temporary injunction to block Austin's ordinance. The case will now head back to trial in the lower court.
What they're saying
Austin spokesperson Erik Johnson said the city was aware of the April result but didn't comment on whether local enforcement policies would immediately be changing.
“We have received a decision from the 15th Court of Appeals and thank the Court for its time and consideration. We are reviewing the Court’s ruling as we evaluate our next steps," he said in a statement.
Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes called the appeals court's decision a "huge letdown" given local opinion on the issue.
"Austin voters made their voices loud and clear in 2022, and instead of respecting that, the State has chosen to ignore their will," she said in a statement. "Now, our police will be forced to waste time on minor marijuana cases instead of focusing on violent crimes. Once again, the State is stepping on local decisions that reflect the values Austin residents actually care about.”
Catina Voellinger, executive director of the political group Ground Game Texas that petitioned to get Austin's Proposition A on the ballot, also said the outcome overturned the will of local residents.
“These decisions don't change the fact that the people of Austin and San Marcos spoke with one voice. It doesn’t change the fact that for years, the ordinance protected residents from arrest and criminalization over low-level possession. And it definitely doesn’t change our commitment to this fight," she said in a statement. "We will continue to work with our partners in San Marcos and Austin to craft policies that respond to this ruling while working to preserve the will of the voters who overwhelmingly turned out for these ordinances."
Paxton's office didn't respond to a request for comment as of press time.
Some context
The ruling against Austin came a week after a similar outcome in Paxton's case against San Marcos over its own voter-approved ordinance. A district court judge had also dismissed the state's suit there, leading the city police department to deprioritize enforcement with a sharp decline in marijuana citations and arrests.
A different outcome took place in Bastrop, where the City Council rejected a deprioritization measure that earned voter approval.
Zooming in
Officials in Austin and San Marcos ended up certifying their enforcement ordinances following the recent elections. While local leaders generally must accept the results of successful ballot measures from their constituents, Assistant Solicitor General Cory Scanlon said cities shouldn't adopt voter-approved policies that are illegal. He also argued that the ballot propositions prevented full prosecution under state law.
“By taking away the tools of arrest and citation, you don’t even have defendants you can really bring a full case against, that severely interferes with prosecutorial discretion," he said Feb. 12.
Attorney Hannah Vahl, representing Austin, said state law on the issue was unclear, leaving the door open for the city to implement Proposition A.
“Section 370.003 of the Texas Local Government Code, which purports to prohibit certain entities from adopting a policy under which those entities will not fully enforce all laws relating to drugs, is vague to the point of being no rule at all," she said.
Gabrielle Smith, an attorney for San Marcos, shared a similar sentiment based on voters' approval.
“It’s not preventing full enforcement. It maybe makes enforcement look a little bit different, but it makes enforcement look like what the will of the people want," she said.
Appellate judges appeared skeptical of the cities' arguments back in February, with Chief Justice Scott Brister saying Texas criminal statute should trump local policies.
“The railroad only runs if everybody, including all judges who swore to uphold the laws, say, ‘Well, that’s what we’ll do.’ And this doesn’t look like that," he said. "This looks like a city or two that didn’t like the drug laws on minor possession of marijuana—which they’re entitled to that position, and they may be right or wrong—but how do we run this railroad if local governments and local judges won’t follow state law?”
