.png)
Elgin’s marijuana-centered lawsuit with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reached its resolution June 18 as the court approved an agreement between city and state, but third party cannabis advocates see a pathway towards appeal.
The 21st District Court of Bast rop Count y granted a consent decree between the city and Paxton’s office Tuesday evening, simultaneously striking a third party’s petition in intervention, defendant-intervenors Courtenay Paris and Decriminalize Elgin.
“This is the correct business decision for the city to dispose of this unnecessary litigation,” City Manager Thomas Mattis said.
A consent decree is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between parties without admission of guilt or liability. According to Elgin City Council, while the city committed no crimes or wrongdoing, this settlement was viewed as the appropriate step moving forward.
Terms in the plaintiff and defendant’s decree state that “the parties desire to avoid further litigation and have reached an agreement,” stipulating that “the ordinance is void,” and the “plaintiff shall dismiss this suit.”
“It is very important, however, that we do not forget what Ken Paxton said about the city of Elgin and its residents,” Mattis added.
In a January press release announcing the filing of this lawsuit, alongside others targeting cities with similar ordinances, Paxton stated he “will not stand idly by as cities run by procrime extremists deliberately violate Texas law and promote the use of illicit drugs that harm our communities.”
Paxton originally filed suit against Elgin for an initiative petition approved by local voters eliminating enforcement of low-level marijuana offenses within the city, claiming it violates the Texas Constitution.
“This litigation was a ridiculous waste of public resources solely for political purposes,” Mattis said. “Had the [Attorn General’s] office made a little effort to work together, their issues could have been easily addressed over a year ago, but they were very focused on filing this lawsuit against the citizens of Elgin.”
The petition was submitted to the council November 2022 in compliance with the Elgin City Charter and state law.
However, given its conflict with state law, the council voted against the proposed ordinance. It was then placed on the ballot as stipulated in the charter, fulfilling the city’s legal obligation as the petitioners also complied with the necessary legal requirements, according to the council.
In spite of its approval by Elgin’s voters, at no time did the city and/or the Elgin Police Department implement or enforce this ordinance due to conflicting state law, according to the council.
Decriminalize Elgin and organization Chairperson Paris were key proponents of the ordinance that passed with over 75% voter approval.
The defendant-intervenors, represented by Richard Gladden, are “adamantly opposed” to the consent agreement.
The team contended that the court has no jurisdiction over this case because the city has never enforced or applied the ordinance and the state cannot demonstrate it ever will, and that the Attorney General’s office is prohibited by the Texas Constitution from representing “the State of Texas” in a Texas District Court unless the constitution expressly states otherwise.
Gladden stated the orders constitute an appealable final judgment, if the defendant-intervenors decide to act on it.
“I am very confident the Court of Appeals will vacate both of the orders entered by the Bastrop District Court because it failed to determine and rule whether it had jurisdiction over the Attorney General’s lawsuit in the first instance, and before rendering these two orders,” Gladden said.
According to Gladden, the Travis County District Court’s ruling that no Texas District Court has jurisdiction over the identical petition filed by the Attorney General is likely to be affirmed.
“I’ve found that courts in Austin are less inclined than others across the state to blindly follow whatever someone who works for the Attorney General of Texas tells them,” Gladden added. “I think that is because Travis County courts interact with employees of the Attorney General regularly, unlike courts in other counties.”
The defendant-intervenors have 30 days from the date of the orders to file a notice of appeal.
“This litigation was a ridiculous waste of public resources solely for political purposes.”
— City Manager Thomas Mattis
