Texas: Houston & Surrounds: A Litigation: General Commercial Overview

The two biggest developments in the Texas judicial landscape within the last year are:

• the ongoing rollout of the Texas Business Court and the Fifteenth Court of Appeals; and
• changes to Rule 166a governing motions for summary judgment.

Texas Business Court

Fuelled by pressure from energy companies and business interests, the Texas legislature created the specialized Business Court to handle complex business civil litigation matters outside the regular state courts of general jurisdiction. The Business Court has limited subject matter jurisdiction and is presided over by judges appointed by the governor, with two judges assigned to each regional division. The court became operational in 2024, and as of this writing, over 300 cases are currently on file. The Business Court has 11 regional divisions, but so far only the five divisions located in the state’s main centers of business and commerce are operational: the First (Dallas), the Third (Austin), the Fourth (San Antonio), the Eighth (Fort Worth) and the Eleventh (Houston). The Fifteenth Court of Appeals was also created in part to handle appeals from the Business Court. It is based in Austin and is operational.

Within the last year, the Business Courts witnessed their first bench and first jury trials, both of which took place in the Houston division. The bench trial involved a suit between Marathon Oil and Mercuria Energy America LLC, a commodities trading company, over a contract for the delivery of natural gas that was disrupted by Winter Storm Uri in 2021. The judge concluded that the storm was a force majeure event that absolved Marathon from its obligation to deliver natural gas to Mercuria. The jury trial concerned an ownership dispute among investors in a proposed deepwater crude oil export terminal near Corpus Christi. The jury found for the plaintiff and rejected counterclaims for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. The Houston division is currently the most active division within the Business Courts system so far, overseeing about half of the cases filed within the first year of operation.

One criticism of the new business court system has been that it violates Texas’s state constitution. Under Article V of the Texas Constitution, state district court judges are supposed to be elected. This criticism is now being put to the test in a wrongful termination case currently pending before the Houston division of the business court. Brown v Exxon Mobil Corporation was filed in state district court in 2025 by a former Exxon Mobil executive who claims he was fired because he is black. Claiming the case concerned the internal workings of the company, Exxon Mobil removed the case to the business court in December 2025. Brown’s attorneys then filed a motion in February 2026, claiming that the business court is unconstitutional. Brown claims that, because the business court is a trial court, it is a district court under the Texas Constitution, which means that its judges must be elected. Both parties have filed briefing on the motion, but as of this writing, the court has not issued a ruling. This is an important case with implications for the future of the Business Court’s continuing operations.

New Summary Judgment Standards

On 1 March 2026, revisions to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a governing summary judgment went into effect. The revisions do not change the standard for rulings on summary judgment but instead concern scheduling and deadlines in an effort to make summary judgment practice more uniform and predictable.

The amended rule now employs a uniform briefing schedule tied to the filing of the motion rather than to the hearing date. Non-movants now have 21 days to respond to a motion for summary judgment, absent leave of the court. The amended rule expressly allows movants to file replies within seven days. The amended rule also imposes deadlines on the court to hear and rule on motions. A summary judgment hearing cannot be set for hearing or submission any earlier than 35 days after the motion is filed, and the court must set the motion for hearing or submission within 60 days or within 90 days if the court’s docket so requires. Once the motion is heard or submitted, the court must rule on it within 90 days. Finally, the amended rule is organized to clarify when traditional and no-evidence motions can be filed. Traditional motions may be filed at any time after the adverse party has appeared or answered the lawsuit, and require the movant to provide evidence showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Meanwhile, no-evidence motions may be filed after an adequate time for discovery has passed, and require the non-movant to produce evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Prior to these amendments, scheduling summary judgment motions in relation to a trial date could be challenging. Litigants were sometimes in limbo waiting on a summary judgment ruling with a fast-approaching trial date. Proponents of the new rule hope that these changes make it easier to craft scheduling orders and to avoid waiting on a summary judgment decision while preparing in earnest for trial.