Although thousands of Rio Grande Valley students returned to class with school-mandated masks in place Monday, it’s doubtful the struggle between Gov. Greg Abbott and the districts that implemented those mandates is over.
Seven Valley school districts — La Joya, Hidalgo, Edinburg, Brownsville, Edcouch-Elsa, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo and Lasara — sued the governor last week and announced plans to require students, staff and visitor wear masks at the beginning of the fall semester.
Those districts, along with a variety of governmental entities in other parts of the state, are defying an executive order from Abbott issued in May. In a social media post, state Attorney General Ken Paxton characterized that phenomenon as “a wave of lawlessness.”
A Travis County judge granted those Valley districts a temporary restraining order Friday, allowing them to require masks for the time being. A hearing in that case has been set for Monday morning.
On the other hand, a Texas Supreme Court decision over the weekend temporarily abolished mask mandates in Dallas and Bexar counties. A lower court judge later ruled Bexar County could keep its mandate in place, but it appears that Paxton is using that Texas Supreme Court victory to put pressure on Valley districts implementing a mandate.
On Monday, Paxton asked the Texas Supreme Court to suspend the temporary restraining order granted to the district, a request that the court denied.
“The school districts respectfully request the Court deny the State’s presumptuous and premature request,” a document filed by the district’s attorney Monday reads. “If the State chooses to file a mandamus petition and motion for emergency relief, the school districts should be given more time than a couple of hours to prepare a meaningful response for the Court.”
The representatives for the district argued, largely, that their client’s arguments were different than arguments from Bexar and Dallas Counties.
“The arguments offered by the school districts in support of their temporary restraining order are materially different than the arguments provided by Judge Jenkins and the other parties,” documents read. “The State ignores this fact and has neglected to include the school districts’ pleadings in their supplemental mandamus record.”
The Valley school districts and other parties in the case received a letter from Paxton on Monday, demanding they acknowledge by 4 p.m. that day that the temporary restraining order they received is void and of no effect.
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Paxton wrote in the letters. “Local orders and policies purporting to enjoin the Governor’s authority may not be enforced while the Court considers the underlying merits of those cases.”
La Joya ISD issued a statement later that day saying that district leadership were looking forward to their day in court and pleased with the supreme court’s decision.
“Our Board of Trustees and Superintendent are steadfast in their commitment to providing a safe learning and working environment for its students, employees, and communities as the school year begins,” the statement reads.
Also Tuesday, the McAllen school district outlined its compliance with last week’s county health order mandating masks in schools.
A release from the district Tuesday said facial coverings will be required for all students, visitors, faculty and staff regardless of vaccination status, although there are some exemptions to that requirement.
