The Fifteenth Court of Appeals is poised to decide a high-profile case that could redefine the relationship between state law and local governance in Texas. At the heart of State of Texas v. City of San Marcos is a 2022 voter-approved ordinance that prohibits San Marcos police officers from issuing citations or making arrests for misdemeanor marijuana possession, except in limited circumstances.

The State of Texas argues that the ordinance violates state preemption laws, undermines uniform enforcement of drug laws, and imposes operational policies on local officials that conflict with state law. Meanwhile, the City of San Marcos defends the ordinance as a lawful, voter-driven measure that reallocates police resources and does not conflict with state law. The appellate court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for local control and enforcement priorities across Texas.

The Legal Timeline

The dispute began in November 2022, when San Marcos voters overwhelmingly approved the marijuana ordinance through a ballot initiative. The ordinance prohibits police from making arrests or issuing citations for low-level marijuana offenses, with exceptions for felony investigations or violent crimes.

In January 2024, the State of Texas, represented by the Attorney General’s office, filed suit against the City of San Marcos, its mayor, city council, police chief, and city manager. The State argued that the ordinance violated Texas Local Government Code §370.003, which bars municipalities from adopting policies that prevent the full enforcement of state drug laws.

By July 2024, the 207th Judicial District Court in Hays County dismissed the State’s claims, ruling in favor of San Marcos. The trial court found that the City and its officials were immune from suit and that the ordinance did not conflict with state law. The State appealed the decision, and the case now awaits a ruling from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.

State of Texas: Preemption and the Uniform Application of Law

The State of Texas frames its argument around the principle of preemption, contending that Texas law unequivocally prohibits local governments from undermining or altering state drug enforcement laws. According to the Attorney General’s office, the San Marcos ordinance directly conflicts with §370.003, which mandates full enforcement of state drug laws by municipal entities and officials.

The State argues that the ordinance goes beyond reallocating resources and effectively nullifies state law by instructing police officers not to arrest or cite individuals for misdemeanor marijuana possession. This, the State contends, constitutes a local policy in direct violation of §370.003.

A central focus of the State’s argument is the distinction between ordinances and policies. While the City claims the ordinance does not violate §370.003 because it was enacted through a voter initiative, the State argues that the law’s operational effect turns the ordinance into a policy. The State emphasizes that the implementation of the ordinance—including the issuance of training memoranda and directives to police officers—demonstrates the adoption of a policy that interferes with state law enforcement.

The Attorney General’s office also takes issue with the City’s claim that it has not formally adopted a conflicting policy. The State argues that by complying with the ordinance, San Marcos officials—specifically the police chief—are effectively adopting operational policies that limit enforcement of marijuana laws. For example, a memorandum from Chief Stan Standridge directed officers to adhere to the ordinance, which the State views as clear evidence of a prohibited policy under §370.003.

The State further argues that §370.003 applies broadly to any municipal action, whether it is labeled as an ordinance, policy, or another term. By focusing on the practical consequences of the ordinance, the State seeks to dismiss the City’s reliance on technical distinctions between these terms. The State also argues that allowing such ordinances to stand would create a patchwork of enforcement across Texas, undermining the uniform application of the state’s drug laws.

Finally, the State asserts that governmental immunity does not shield the City or its officials from suit. According to the State, §370.003 explicitly waives immunity for cases involving municipal actions that conflict with state law. The State contends that San Marcos officials, by implementing the ordinance, have acted in a manner inconsistent with their legal obligations under Texas law.

City of San Marcos: Defending Voter Initiatives and Local Authority

The City of San Marcos defends the ordinance as a legitimate exercise of local authority and a reflection of voter intent. The City argues that the ordinance complies with state law because it does not outright nullify Texas drug statutes but instead prioritizes the allocation of police resources.

San Marcos emphasizes that the ordinance originated through a ballot initiative, not through the City Council or any other governing body. The City contends that §370.003 applies only to policies explicitly adopted by municipal officials, not to measures enacted directly by voters. This distinction, the City argues, removes the ordinance from the scope of §370.003’s prohibition.

The City also disputes the State’s interpretation of the term “policy.” San Marcos asserts that it has not adopted any formal policies to enforce or operationalize the ordinance in a manner that conflicts with state law. While the police chief issued a memorandum to clarify the ordinance’s provisions, the City argues that this memorandum was merely informational and does not constitute a formal policy.

Further, San Marcos argues that the ordinance does not prohibit officers from enforcing state marijuana laws in all situations. Officers remain authorized to seize marijuana and enforce laws in specific cases, such as those involving school zones or felony investigations. The City contends that the ordinance reflects a reasonable use of discretion in prioritizing law enforcement resources, a practice that does not violate §370.003.

San Marcos also challenges the State’s assertion that the ordinance creates a conflict with state law. The City argues that §370.003 does not impose an affirmative obligation to enforce drug laws to the fullest extent but merely prohibits explicit bans on enforcement. Since the ordinance does not completely bar enforcement, the City claims it is in compliance with the statute.

Finally, San Marcos defends the trial court’s ruling on governmental immunity. The City argues that its officials acted within their legal authority and that the voter-driven nature of the ordinance insulates them from liability. The City maintains that implementing the ordinance does not amount to an ultra vires act that would waive immunity under Texas law.

What’s at Stake

This case highlights a growing tension between state and local governments in Texas, particularly as municipalities explore measures that diverge from statewide policies. A ruling in favor of the State could strengthen state preemption laws and limit the ability of local governments to enact voter-driven initiatives that alter enforcement practices. Conversely, a decision favoring San Marcos could empower cities to prioritize local needs and push back against state mandates.

The Fifteenth Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments early next year. Until then, the San Marcos ordinance remains in effect, allowing police to focus on violent crimes and other high-priority cases while limiting enforcement of low-level marijuana offenses.

For case documents and updates, visit the official docket at 15-24-00084-CV.

Disclaimer

The content provided above is for informational and educational purposes only. The details outlined in the complaint and the allegations against the involved parties are based on the information available at the time of composition. Any actions or decisions taken based on this information should be carefully considered and coupled with professional legal counsel where necessary. The accuracy, completeness, and current nature of the information cannot be guaranteed, and no liability is accepted for any losses or damages incurred as a result of the use of this information. It is advisable to consult with a qualified legal professional regarding specific legal issues and concerns.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.

Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News