Full Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 29, 2026 In The Fifteenth Court of Appeals NO. 15-26-00021-CV KRISTEN PLAISANCE, Appellant V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS, AND THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE, Appellees On Appeal from the 261st District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-24-005044 and NO. 15-26-00152-CV KRISTEN PLAISANCE, Appellant V. KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 261st District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-24-005044 MEMORANDUM OPINION In September of 2025, Kristen Plaisance intervened in a lawsuit Hart InterCivic, Inc. filed against Montgomery County1 and the Attorney General of Texas to avoid complying with Plaisance’s Public Information Act request.2 In addition to intervening in support of disclosure, she asserted various counterclaims for breach of contract and violations of her constitutional rights. The County and the Attorney General filed separate pleas to the jurisdiction seeking to dismiss her counterclaims for lack of standing and because she did not plead a waiver of sovereign or governmental immunity.3 The trial court sustained the pleas in separate orders. Plaisance does not contend that the trial court incorrectly applied the law on standing or immunity. She argues instead that the Texas Constitution prohibits applying those doctrines to defeat claims, especially constitutional claims, without reaching the merits. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that both doctrines are rooted in constitutional limitations on the power of courts to decide certain 1 More specifically, Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Elections Office. 2 Hart InterCivic, Inc. supplies voting machines and secure software to run them to the County under contract. The software creates a backup file of votes cast in each election. In April 2024, Plaisance filed a request with the County under the Public Information Act for a copy of that file from the most recent election. The County declined to disclose the database and requested a ruling from the Attorney General. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 552.301(b). The Attorney General’s Open Records Divisions ruled that the file must be disclosed. Tex. Att’y Gen. OR2024-023469. 3 See City of Buffalo v. Moliere, 703 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex. 2024) (“Sovereign immunity protects the State, state agencies, and their officers, while governmental immunity protects subdivisions of the State, including municipalities and school districts.”). 2 disputes.4 As an intermediate court of appeals, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions.5 We affirm the trial court’s rulings dismissing her counterclaims against the County and the Attorney General of Texas for want of jurisdiction.6 /s/ Scott A. Brister Scott A. Brister Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris. 4 See, e.g., Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., 731 S.W.3d 331, 336–37 (Tex. 2026) (explaining that the Texas Constitution empowers the Legislature—not the courts—to determine whether to waive sovereign immunity and permit suits against the State of Texas); Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs. v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc., 717 S.W.3d 854, 866–67 (Tex. 2025) (standing is a constitutionally-imposed limit on which cases a court may decide). 5 See, e.g., Grassroots Leadership, 717 S.W.3d at 866; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 258 n.12 (Tex. 2022). 6 Plaisance is not entitled to an opportunity to amend because she has given no explanation for how these jurisdictional defects could be cured. Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (noting plaintiff on appeal “has made no suggestion as to how to cure the jurisdictional defect”); see Matzen v. McLane, 659 S.W.3d 381, 395–96 (Tex. 2021) (noting plaintiff on appeal has alleged “no viable theories of liability”). 3