In re David Rogers, 26-0010, January 13, 2026.
On appeal from Unspecified Trial Court (Relator bypassed the Court of Appeals)
Synopsis
The Supreme Court of Texas denied mandamus relief because the Relator’s claims rested upon unresolved, material fact disputes regarding the validity of petition signatures, which the Court cannot adjudicate in an original proceeding. Furthermore, the Court held that parties seeking extraordinary relief in time-sensitive matters must act with “unusual dispatch,” and those who file applications at the statutory deadline have no ministerial right to cure deficiencies once that deadline has passed.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, In re David Rogers serves as a stark reminder of the jurisdictional limits of mandamus in the face of a muddy record. While family law litigators frequently utilize mandamus to challenge temporary orders or jurisdictional rulings, this opinion underscores that if your client’s “clear legal right” depends on resolving a “he-said, she-said” factual conflict—such as the intent of parties in an informal marriage or the specific circumstances of a child’s residence for venue purposes—SCOTX will not intervene. Additionally, the Court’s emphasis on “unusual dispatch” suggests that dilatory tactics in seeking mandamus relief for time-sensitive custody or possession issues may result in a summary denial, regardless of the merits.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator David Rogers sought to be a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court in the Republican primary. He submitted his application and accompanying signatures only a few hours before the statutory filing deadline on December 8. Four days later, the Respondent (the party chair) rejected the application as deficient. Rogers initially sought a temporary injunction in the trial court, which was denied. Rather than appealing that denial or seeking emergency relief from the intermediate Court of Appeals, Rogers waited a full week and then filed an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court of Texas. By this time, the election cycle was well underway, with ballot-order draws completed and counties beginning to print mail-in ballots. Rogers argued both that his application was sufficient and that, if it were not, he had a right to “cure” the defects by filing an amended application after the deadline.
Issues Decided
- Does the Supreme Court of Texas have the authority to grant mandamus relief when the underlying claim requires the resolution of genuinely disputed material facts?
- Does an election official have a ministerial duty to allow a candidate to cure application deficiencies after the statutory deadline has passed when the application was filed in the final hours of the filing period?
- Does the failure to pursue appellate relief with “unusual dispatch” preclude the availability of mandamus?
Rules Applied
The Court applied the “extraordinary remedy” standard for mandamus, noting it is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or a violation of a ministerial duty when no other adequate remedy exists. The Court relied on In re Angelini and Brady v. Fourteenth Ct. of Appeals to reaffirm that mandamus cannot issue when the claim depends on resolving disputed material facts. Regarding election law specifically, the Court cited Texas Election Code § 172.0222(i), which prohibits amending applications after the filing deadline, and In re Khanoyan, which mandates “unusual dispatch” and “maximum expedition” for parties seeking judicial intervention in election matters.
Application
The Court’s application of these rules followed a dual track of procedural default and jurisdictional limitation. First, the Court noted that a “vigorous dispute” remained regarding whether the signatures Rogers submitted were valid. Because the trial court had already weighed in and refused to find in Rogers’ favor, and because SCOTX does not resolve factual disputes in mandamus proceedings, the Relator could not establish a clear legal right. The Court found it improper to be the first court to resolve these factual questions in an original proceeding, especially when the Relator had abandoned the ordinary appellate process (an interlocutory appeal of the injunction denial).
Second, the Court addressed the “cure” argument. While prior case law allowed some leeway for candidates to fix technicalities, the Court clarified that this opportunity is not an open-ended right. It is a “two-way street” that depends on the candidate filing early enough to allow for review and correction before the deadline. Because Rogers waited until the final hours to file, he effectively forestalled the possibility of a pre-deadline review and cure. Consequently, the Respondent had no ministerial duty to accept a late-filed amendment, and Texas Election Code § 172.0222(i) explicitly barred such post-deadline supplements.
Holding
The Court held that mandamus relief is unavailable when the record reflects a genuine dispute of material fact. In this case, the contested validity of the Relator’s signatures created a factual barrier that the Supreme Court could not cross in an original proceeding. The Court emphasized that it will not act as a fact-finder where the trial court has already declined to rule in the Relator’s favor.
The Court further held that a candidate who files an application at the end of the filing period has no right to cure deficiencies after the deadline. There is no ministerial duty for an official to facilitate a cure when the candidate’s own timing prevented the official from reviewing the application before the statutory window closed. Finally, the Court held that the “unusual dispatch” required in election cases applies to the parties’ choice of procedural strategy; bypassing the Court of Appeals and delaying the filing of a mandamus petition by a week constitutes a failure to move with “maximum expedition.”
Practical Application
This case provides a strategic roadmap for family law attorneys facing time-sensitive litigation:
- Avoid Fact-Heavy Mandamus: If you are challenging a trial court’s ruling on a Motion to Confer or a temporary custody order, ensure the record contains a clear, undisputed factual basis for your legal argument. If the trial court made a credibility determination, mandamus is likely the wrong vehicle.
- The “Unusual Dispatch” Bar: In cases involving school enrollments, international travel, or immediate changes in primary residence, do not “tactically shift” between the trial court and the appellate courts. File your petition immediately. A one-week delay in a fast-moving case can be the difference between a merits review and a summary denial.
- No Eleventh-Hour Protection: Just as the candidate had no right to cure a late-filed application, practitioners should not expect the courts to “save” them from deficiencies in filings made at the literal deadline (e.g., failing to attach required affidavits to an emergency motion for stay).
Checklists
Evaluating Mandamus Viability
- Identify whether the trial court’s order rests on a legal conclusion or a factual finding.
- Scan the record for “vigorous disputes” regarding material facts.
- If a fact dispute exists, determine if there is a way to frame the issue as a “pure question of law.”
Procedural Dispatch for Emergency Relief
- File for emergency relief in the Court of Appeals immediately following a trial court’s adverse ruling.
- Do not bypass the intermediate court of appeals unless you can demonstrate a statewide impact or an absolute lack of time that makes intermediate review impossible.
- Document the timeline of your actions to prove “maximum expedition” in your petition’s statement of the case.
Citation
In re David Rogers, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
The full opinion of the Court can be found here: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461965/260010pc.pdf
Family Law Crossover
In high-stakes divorce and custody litigation, In re David Rogers can be weaponized to defeat an opponent’s petition for writ of mandamus. When an opposing party seeks mandamus to overturn a trial court’s temporary orders, the respondent should aggressively highlight every factual inconsistency in the record. By demonstrating that the trial court’s order was based on a resolution of conflicting testimony or disputed evidence, you can invoke the Rogers rule: SCOTX and the Courts of Appeals cannot resolve these disputes in a mandamus context.
Additionally, use the “unusual dispatch” language to argue laches or waiver. If an opposing counsel waits even a few days to challenge a temporary order that they claim is causing “irreparable harm,” cite Rogers to argue that their failure to act with “maximum expedition” proves that the necessity is neither manifest nor urgent.
~~f1673093-774b-4ae9-8778-4ef8beebb3de~~
Share this content: