In re Powered by People and Robert Francis O'Rourke v. the State of Texas

ACCEPTED 15-25-00140-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/26/2025 1:47 PM No. 15-25-00140-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK In the Court of Appeals 15th COURT FILED IN OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS for the Fifteenth Judicial District8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk In re Powered By People and Robert Francis O’Rourke, Relators.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus 348th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County OPPOSED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MANDAMUS PETITION To the Honorable Fifteenth Court of Appeals: In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b), Real Party in Interest, the State of Texas, moves for a 14-day extension of time to file a response to the mandamus petition in the above-captioned matter, creating a new deadline of September 9. Because this Court has requested a response to a 14,447-word mandamus petition filed yesterday by 4:30 p.m. tomorrow—a functionally impossible task under even the best of circumstances—the State requests a ruling on their motion by 4:30 p.m. today. If such relief is not forthcoming, the State will seek mandamus review in Texas Supreme Court.

I.

After close of business on August 25, Relators filed a 75-page, 14,447-word petition for a writ of mandamus challenging at least five unrelated orders issued by the Respondent on a variety of different topics over the course of the last three weeks. As of the time of this filing, the State has not been supplied a copy of the mandamus record. In addition to the mandamus petition itself, the relators filed an emergency motion for temporary relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10, seeking a stay of all the orders challenged in the mandamus petition as well as the underlying proceedings in the 348th district court.

Shortly before noon the next day, August 26, this Court requested that the State respond to Plaintiffs’ mandamus petition by 4:30 p.m. the next day, August 27.

The State now requests that this Court extend their deadline to respond by 14 days, or to September 9. This Court’s request that counsel for the State respond to a 14,447-word mandamus petition—a filing that Relators’ counsel has been working on for weeks—is patently unreasonable and violates due process by effectively depriving the State of its opportunity to be heard. Crafting a response to Relators’ lengthy, scattershot filing that seeks mandamus relief from multiple orders issued by the district court over the course of the last three weeks would be a challenging undertaking involving a significant investment of the State’s resources under a normal timeframe. On the expedited timeline the Court has imposed, it would be next to impossible—not the least of which because the State does not even have a copy of the mandamus record. The State’s lawyers are exceptionally talented and hardworking, but even they cannot do the impossible. This Court should not be in the business of imposing such demands on dedicated public servants.

Worst of all, the emergency the Relators have created is one of their own making.

A cursory review of Relators’ filings demonstrates that their mandamus petition challenges orders issued by the Respondent as far back as August 8th. It is fundamentally inequitable to allow Respondents to sit on their rights for nearly two weeks and then rush to this Court in an emergency posture demanding urgent relief, thereby forcing the State’s lawyers to drop everything, including several other emergency matters, to attend to this case.

II.

Beyond the fundamental unfairness of the expedited briefing schedule, the requested 14-day extension of time is necessary because the State’s counsel is exceptionally busy on several other matters, including several emergency, expedited proceedings requiring their prompt and full attention. Those matters include: • an opening brief on the merits in State of Texas v. FERC, No. 24-1758, due to be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 29, 2025; • an amicus brief in support of Appellees in Doe v. Planed Parenthood Foundation of America, Inc., No.23-11184 (5th Cir.), due to be filed in the Fifth Circuit on September 3, 2025; • a supplemental brief in National Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Services v. Black, No. 23-10520 (5th Cir.), due to be filed in the Fifth Circuit on September 4, 2025; • a reply brief on the merits in In re State, No. 25-0687, due to be filed in the Texas Supreme Court on September 4, 2025; • a reply brief on the merits in Paxton v. Garza, No. 15-25-00116-cv, due to be filed in this Court on September 8, 2025; • a multi-state amicus brief in Galette v. N.J. Transit Corp., No. 24-1021, due September 10, in the Supreme Court of the United States; • expedited proceedings in Myers v. Stephen F. Austin University, No. 25-40487 (5th Cir.); and • expedited proceedings in Wang v. Paxton, No. 25-20354 (5th Cir.).

In addition to briefing and argument obligations, counsel has numerous prelitigation, oversight, and managerial responsibilities and continues to be staffed on other public and non-public litigation and advisory matters throughout the Office of the Attorney General.

Prayer For these reasons, the State requests that the Court grant its motion for a 14-day extension of time to file a response to Respondents’ motion by 4:30 p.m. today, resulting in a new deadline of September 9, 2025.

Respectfully submitted.

Ken Paxton William R. Peterson Attorney General of Texas Solicitor General Brent Webster /s/ William F. Cole First Assistant Attorney General William F. Cole Principal Deputy Solicitor General State Bar No. 24124187 [email protected] Abigail E. Smith Office of the Attorney General Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel.: (512) 936-1700 Counsel for Real Party in Interest the Fax: (512) 474-2697 State of Texas

Certificate of Conference I certify that on August 26, 2025, counsel for the State conferred with counsel for Relators, who stated that they oppose the extension sought through this motion.

/s/ William F. Cole William F. Cole

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Maria Mendoza-Williamson on behalf of William Cole Bar No. 24124187 [email protected] Envelope ID: 104862683 Filing Code Description: Motion Filing Description: PBP Opposed MET v1 BC TO FILE Status as of 8/26/2025 1:54 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Sean McCaffity 24013122 [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT Robert Farquharson 24100550 [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT Mimi Marziani [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT Joaquin Gonzalez [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT Rebecca Stevens [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT Brian Falligant` [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT Rebecca Neumann [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT William FCole [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT William Peterson [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT Maria Williamson [email protected] 8/26/2025 1:47:11 PM SENT