CENTRAL TEXAS CITY ORDINANCES
The city of San Marcos, along with many other Texas cities with similar ordinances, will now be required to enforce marijuana laws once again. The city of San Marcos’ marijuana ordinance, which limited enforcement of low-level marijuana offenses involving the possession of under four ounces, was supported by 82% of San Marcos voters in 2022. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the city of San Marcos, along with the cities of Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Elgin and Denton to repeal their ordinances.
The lawsuit was adjudicated in the city of San Marcos’ favor in 2024, but Paxton appealed the decision. The 15th Court of Appeals Opinion filed on April 17 states that, according to Texas Constitutional law, “state law preempts contrary city ordinances.” Specifically, article XI 5(a) states “[N] o ... ordinance passed under [a city] charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State.” The opinion also states that it does not allow the adoption of “a policy under which the entity will not fully enforce laws relating to drugs.”
Questions of constitutionality were raised throughout the ordinance creation process. Standridge had previously stated in the SMPD 2022 Annual Review that “no policy was adopted as required by the ordinance due to State law conflict.” The lawsuit states that Standridge then issued a memorandum to the police department detailing the department’s compliance with the ordinance. In the opinion issued by the 15th Court of Appeals from this year, that memorandum was cited as the reason that Standridge should be included in the suit.
Former Hays County District Attorney Wes Mau asked the Texas Attorney General’s Office for an opinion on the ordinances in December of 2022.
“Based on the ordinance’s enactment, the following questions are raised: First, is the ordinance preempted by the laws of the State of Texas criminalizing the possession and delivery of marijuana?” Mau wrote in a letter sent to the Office of the Attorney General that the Daily Record reported in December of 2022. “Second, if the ordinance is void due to preemption, does it expose the city to potential legal action, particularly with respect to potential discipline of San Marcos police officers unwilling to comply with an unlawful ordinance?”
In the opinion issued this year, the 15th Court of Appeals stated that the case was being sent back to the district court, which initially tried the case. The opinion states that the claims against San Marcos City Manager Stephanie Reyes would be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff may refile against her at a later date. The opinion stated that the ordinance was unlawful and San Marcos City Council and Mayor Jane Hughson were responsible due to the certification of the results of the election, adding that the “Mayor signed the resolution that considered, approved and adopted’ the Ordinance.” The 15th court of appeals issued an “injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Ordinance” until the trial at the district court on the merits of the case is complete.
“The City of San Marcos is reviewing the opinion issued by the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the trial court to enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance,” according to an official with the city of San Marcos. “The City cannot enforce the ordinance pending a trial on the merits. The San Marcos City Council is expected to meet in an upcoming executive session to receive legal advice and provide direction for moving forward.”
Mano Amiga, the advocacy group that received the necessary signatures to place the ordinance on the ballot, issued a press release following the decision.
“Let’s be clear — this decision didn’t come from a court grounded in community,” said Eric Martinez, Mano Amiga executive director. “It came from a court manufactured by the same state officials bringing the lawsuit, with the express goal of silencing progressive policies that Texans are voting for at the local level. This is judicial gerrymandering, plain and simple.”
Martinez believes that the decision is about more than cannabis.
“It’s about who has the power to shape our communities,” Martinez said.
Standridge previously told the Daily Record that Marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia were among the most common citable offenses before the ordinance was passed in 2022.
