Legislation enacted earlier this year increasing judicial pay also requires courts across Texas to adhere to strict deadlines for deciding motions for summary judgment. While there was perhaps more public dialogue regarding the judicial pay increases, the new procedural requirements imposed on Texas courts will likely have a more direct impact on Texas litigators. Effective September 1, Texas state courts must follow new deadlines and procedures in relation to Motions for Summary Judgment under SB 293 and HB 16. Texas litigation practitioners will wonder what, if any, consequences will arise based on the new deadlines. While the overarching impact has yet to be seen, this alert will discuss the history and intent of the legislation, lay out the new deadlines and explore potential impacts on litigation practice in Texas.
Legislative Purpose
SB 293 was enacted to enhance judicial accountability by establishing timelines, mandating compliance and increasing transparency through standardized reporting. The legislation forms part of a broader initiative that aimed to increase base pay for state district court judges.[1] While the bill authorized higher pay, it also came with new accountability measures aimed at strengthening oversight. Though the bill received bipartisan support to address Texas’s national ranking near the bottom for judicial compensation, it also faced criticism for its cost.[2] The accountability provisions expand the definition of official misconduct, empowers the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) to consider additional complaints and mandates compliance with the new summary judgment deadlines as explained below.[3] In recommending that lawmakers support the bill, Texas Policy Research, a nonpartisan public policy organization, observed that the changes “enhance public trust in the judiciary by reforming the SCJC with new requirements for timely complaint resolution, the publication of all sanctions, and more structured procedures for handling judicial misconduct.[4] These reforms bring Texas into closer alignment with best practices in judicial oversight.”[5]
Mechanics of the Rule
Fast Facts: The new legislation creates a structured timeline for consideration and disposition of motions for summary judgment. Courts are now required to hear a motion for summary judgment or consider a motion without oral argument within 45 days after the response for the motion was filed and issue a written ruling within 90 days of the oral argument or consideration date. These requirements apply to all motions filed after September 1. HB 16 supplements this framework by ensuring that deadlines are triggered by the filing of the motion itself rather than the response. It requires courts set the motion for hearing within 60 days of the motion filing date, or within 90 days, upon a good cause showing if the movant consents. Withdrawn motions pause the clock under HB 16. HB 16 applies to all motions for summary judgment filed after December 4. Together, these statutes aim to increase judicial accountability and provide litigants greater predictability.[6] Courts must now act promptly, and practitioners must ensure strict procedural compliance to avoid denials that reset the clock.
Enforcement: Similar to the reporting generated under the federal Civil Justice Reform Act, Texas court clerks must record the date a motion for summary judgment is considered and report compliance quarterly to the Office of Court Administration. In turn, this information is used to create an annual report that goes to the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the house by December 31of each year. Though no penalties were announced, the idea is that public reporting of noncompliance creates accountability to taxpayers and litigants.
Practical Effects – Faster Rulings / Unknown Consequences
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” The Legislature’s hope is that the new legislation will reduce delays, promote efficiency, and ensure cases warranting summary judgment are resolved more quickly which in turn reduces legal costs and the need for judicial resources. The thrust of the legislation goes to a core tenet of our judicial system – facilitating a system of justice that operates swiftly and efficiently, and where disputes are determined expeditiously. As with any legislation, however, the new deadlines raise a host of issues with respect to potential unknown consequences in Texas litigation practice. The new condensed deadlines may give rise to strategic considerations for practitioners, such as when and whether to file motions for summary judgment. Texas litigators will certainly question whether the stricter deadlines for decisions make courts more or less inclined to grant motions for summary judgment. This is yet unknown, but summary judgment is a high standard, and with less time to review summary judgment filings, courts may be more likely to deny motions where there simply has not been sufficient time for review prior to the deadline.
The new deadlines also raise questions as to how courts will manage summary judgment hearings. With less time to schedule and rule, some judges may become less inclined to hear oral arguments, instead deciding motions on the briefs to stay within reporting deadlines. This could limit opportunities for advocates to address factual nuances and clarify complex records in person. The effects may also vary by practice area. Practitioners in areas such as personal injury, labor and employment, and creditors’ rights, where motions for summary judgment are common, may be more heavily impacted by the new deadlines.
Under tighter deadlines, judges may be more inclined to deny summary judgment motions where the record is extensive, invoking the familiar adage “there must be a fact issue in there somewhere.” See W. Loop Hosp., LLC v. Houston Galleria Lodging Associates, LLC, 649 S.W.3d 461, 494 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, pet. denied).
The new deadlines also raise questions with respect to appellate practice. Denials of motions for summary judgment are not subject to immediate appeals, and therefore it may be “safer” for appellate purposes for trial courts to deny such motions.
Conclusion
How the new deadlines will ultimately reshape summary judgment practice in Texas remains uncertain, but the impact is likely to be meaningful. Courts will be under pressure to decide motions faster, and litigants may need to adjust their strategies to include earlier filings and streamlined discovery. Public reporting of compliance may also influence forum selection and expectations for timing. Venues with a reputation for rigid compliance with the strict timeline may be advantageous for parties seeking swift resolution. While the intent is greater efficiency and accountability, the real test will be whether speed comes at the expense of thorough consideration. For now, Texas litigants should prepare for faster and procedurally strict summary judgment practice.
[1] https://www.highplainspundit.com/2025/03/texas-senate-passes-judicial-pay-raise.html
[2] https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-legislature-approves-judicial-pay-raise-and-lawmaker-pension-boost-in-final-hours/
[3] https://thetexan.news/judicial/texas-senate-pairs-judicial-pay-increase-with-increased-transparency-accountability-for-judges/article_c5968ebc-0115-11f0-84cd-7fae6e31bb9d.html
[4] https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/bills/89th-legislature-sb-293/
[5] Id.
[6] https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/bills/89th-legislature-sb-293/