Full Breakdown
Texas Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over DFPS Investigations of Transgender Youth
4/25/2026, 10:33:29 AM
Core Event
On April 26, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed the 2022 lawsuit that challenged the Department of Family and Protective Services’ (DFPS) investigations of families with transgender children, ruling that the agency no longer had jurisdiction because three investigations were closed and the fourth child, Mary Doe, had turned 18.
Background & Context
In 2022 Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a nonbinding opinion that gender-affirming care for minors was unlawful. Governor Greg Abbott ordered DFPS to investigate any such reports, and a legislative ban on gender-affirming treatment for minors took effect in September 2023. Parents of Mary Doe, then 16, and psychologist Dr. Megan Mooney sued Abbott, DFPS, and its commissioner, claiming the agency exceeded its authority and violated constitutional rights. A Travis County judge later issued three injunctions halting DFPS actions.
Timeline
- 2022 – Paxton opinion; Abbott directs DFPS.
- Sept 2023 – State law bans gender-affirming care for minors.
- Early 2024 – Lawsuits filed; Travis County injunctions issued.
- Mid-2024 – DFPS closes three investigations; Mary Doe reaches adulthood.
- April 26 2024 – Texas Supreme Court dismisses the case and lifts injunctions.
Why It Matters
The ruling leaves DFPS’s investigative rule untouched, permitting the agency to resume inquiries if new reports emerge. It also highlights the limits of judicial review when a state agency ceases active investigations, while the substantive legality of the rule remains unresolved. The outcome influences the legal landscape for transgender youth, their families, and the broader debate over state authority over gender-affirming care.
Official Statements & Responses
Lambda Legal, the ACLU, ACLU of Texas, and PFLAG issued a joint statement calling the decision “purely procedural” and noting it does not affirm the legality of DFPS’s rule. The governor’s office referred inquiries to DFPS, which declined comment.
Criticism & Opposition
Advocates argue the dismissal fails to address whether DFPS’s mandate violates constitutional protections. Dr. Mooney warned that compliance with reporting requirements could jeopardize professional standards, but the court deemed her concerns hypothetical.
Verbatim Quotes
- “DFPS argued to the Court that, given that gender affirming medical care is no longer lawfully provided to minors in Texas, there is no reason for DFPS to conduct future investigations,” — Joint statement, Lambda Legal, ACLU, ACLU of Texas, PFLAG
- “Her pleading reveals these concerns are, at this point, purely hypothetical,” — Texas Supreme Court opinion
- “I am inclined to view imposition by the government of an increased reporting burden of this nature as an injury sufficient to confer standing,” — Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock
What’s Next
Plaintiffs may pursue appellate review to obtain a substantive ruling on DFPS’s authority. Advocacy groups say they will monitor any renewed investigations and consider further legal action if the agency resumes inquiries.
