SpaceXTexas.jpg

AUSTIN – Those wishing to watch SpaceX launches from Boca Chica Beach will have to watch from somewhere else, as the Texas Supreme Court has found that the environmental groups seeking to preserve access did not have a right to sue.

In 1959, the Texas Legislature passed the Open Beaches Act, declaring by statute that Texans enjoy the “free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress to and from the state-owned beaches.”

“With this statute’s passage, the notion that Texas beaches are the public’s to enjoy became more deeply engrained in our culture,” states the high court’s June 19 opinion. 

In 2009, 50 years after the statute’s passage, Texas voters enshrined the right of public beach access in the Constitution, passing an amendment granting the public a right, described as a permanent easement, to ingress, egress, and use of Texas beaches. 

“But while the amendment constitutionalized the right to use state-owned beaches, it also specified what it was not creating,” the opinion states. “Subsection (d) provides that the new Article I, Section 33 ‘does not create a private right of enforcement.’”

Since Section 33’s adoption, the Legislature has enacted statutes that permit temporary closures of Boca Chica Beach in South Texas to safeguard the public from nearby rocket launches by Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

The challenge was brought by SaveRGV, Sierra Club and Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas. The groups’ members claim the temporary beach closures conflict with their constitutional right.

Justices opined that Section 33’s plain text, along with the historical and legislative context, compelled their conclusion that subsection (d) bars the private plaintiffs’ claims.  

“We thus hold that plaintiffs’ claims are facially invalid,” the opinion states. “Because the claims are not viable, it follows that the defendants, all of whom are governmental actors, retain their immunity from suit.”  

The high court reversed an appellate court and found that the trial court was correct to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case No. 24-0237

More News