Ltts Charter Sch. Inc. D/B/A Universal Acad. v. C2 Constr. Inc.

• Citation: 342 S.W.3d 73,54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1176,269 Ed. Law Rep. 932
• Decision Date: 17 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–0794.,09–0794.
• Parties: LTTS CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. d/b/a Universal Academy, Petitioner,v.C2 CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

342 S.W.3d 73

269 Ed. Law Rep. 932

54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1176

LTTS CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. d/b/a Universal Academy, Petitioner,

v.C2 CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent.

No. 09–0794.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued Dec. 7, 2010.Decided June 17, 2011.

Thomas Anthony Fuller, The Fuller Law Group, PLLC, Arlington, for Petitioner.Brian W. Erikson, Timothy A. York, Quilling, Selander, Cummiskey & Lownds P.C., Dallas, for Respondent.Veronica Leticia Garcia, Texas Charter Schools Association, Cobby A. Caputo, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, Kristofer S. Monson, Assistant Solicitor General, Austin, for Amici Curiae.Justice WILLETT delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice HECHT, Justice WAINWRIGHT, Justice GREEN, Justice JOHNSON, and Justice LEHRMANN joined.

Since 1995, open-enrollment charter schools have been a part of the Texas public-school system. These nontraditional public schools, created and governed by Chapter 12 of the Education Code, receive government funding and comply with the state's testing and accountability system, but they operate with greater flexibility than traditional public schools, in hopes of spurring innovation and improving student achievement.

This interlocutory appeal poses a narrow issue: Is an open-enrollment charter school a “governmental unit” as defined in Section 101.001(3)(D) of the Tort Claims Act ¹ and thus able to take an interlocutory appeal from a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction? ² We answer yes. An open-enrollment charter school qualifies under the Tort Claims Act as an “institution, agency, or organ of government” deriving its status and authority from legislative enactments.³ Accordingly, it may bring an interlocutory appeal. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to that court to reach the merits of the school's immunity claim.

I. Background

LTTS Charter School, Inc., d/b/a Universal Academy, is an open-enrollment charter school that retained C2 Construction, Inc. to build school facilities at a site Universal Academy had leased. C2 filed a breach-of-contract suit, and Universal Academy filed a plea to the jurisdiction claiming immunity from suit. The trial court denied the plea, and Universal Academy brought an interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In the court of appeals, C2 moved to dismiss the interlocutory appeal, arguing Universal Academy was not entitled to one because it is not a “governmental unit” under the Tort Claims Act.⁴ The court of appeals agreed and dismissed the interlocutory appeal.⁵

We granted Universal Academy's petition for review to address whether the court of appeals properly dismissed the interlocutory appeal. Regardless of whether we have jurisdiction over the substance of an interlocutory appeal, we have jurisdiction to determine whether the court of appeals properly determined its own jurisdiction—the only issue raised in the petition and the briefing.⁶

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

A statute's meaning is a question of law we review de novo.⁷ Our goal in construing a statute is to honor the Legislature's expressed intent,⁸ and ordinarily the truest manifestation of legislative intent is legislative language—the words the Legislature chose. ⁹ We thus give unambiguous text its ordinary meaning, aided by the interpretive context provided by “the surrounding statutory landscape.” ¹⁰

B. Statutory Provisions

Section 51.014(a)(8) permits an appeal of an interlocutory order that “grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit as that term is defined in Section 101.001.” ¹¹ Section 101.001(3) states a four-part definition of “governmental unit,” including this broad provision:

(D) any other institution, agency, or organ of government the status and authority of which are derived from the Constitution of Texas or from laws passed by the legislature under the constitution.¹²

Universal Academy argues it qualifies under this catch-all language as an “institution, agency, or organ of government” deriving its status and authority from statutory enactments.¹³ C2 Construction disputes that this statutory provision, or any other, bestows “governmental unit” status on open-enrollment charter schools.

Our cases “strictly construe Section 51.014(a) as a narrow exception to the general rule that only final judgments are appealable.” ¹⁴ Today's decision, however, turns not on the “strictness” or “narrowness” of Section 51.014(a) but on a simpler ground: whether Universal Academy fits within the Legislature's broad definition of “governmental unit” in Section 101.001(3)(D).¹⁵

We have received two amici curiae briefs, both supporting Universal Academy, one from the State of Texas (whose views the Court requested) and one from the Texas Charter Schools Association. Both amici echo Universal Academy's contention that it falls within Section 101.001(3)(D), and we agree: An open-enrollment charter school qualifies as a “governmental unit” under the Tort Claims Act.

C. The “Status and Authority” of Open–Enrollment Charter Schools Arise From Statute.

Open-enrollment charter schools, governed by Chapter 12 of the Education Code, are indisputably part of the Texas public-education system. Several statutes in the Education Code and elsewhere amply demonstrate that open-enrollment charter schools derive their governmental “status and authority” from legislative enactments. Capped at 215 statewide,¹⁶ open-enrollment charter schools are one of three classes of charter schools created by Chapter 12.¹⁷ These open-enrollment charter schools are authorized to “operate in a facility of a commercial or nonprofit entity, an eligible entity, or a school district, including a home-rule school district.” ¹⁸

Chapter 12 of the Education Code, which authorizes the operation of charter schools, seeks to “ensure[ ] the fiscal and academic accountability” of charter holders while still preserving the “innovations of charter schools” from excessive regulation.¹⁹ As publicly funded institutions,²⁰ charter schools are designed to spark academic innovation and thus boost student learning.²¹ Additionally, charter schools “increase the choice of learning opportunities within the public school system,” “create professional opportunities that will attract new teachers to the public school system,” and “establish a new form of accountability for public schools.” ²²

As for status, Section 12.105 of the Education Code—titled “Status”—statutorily (and categorically) declares open-enrollment charter schools to be “part of the public school system of this state.” ²³ In addition, Section 11.002 explains that charter schools are “created in accordance with the laws of this state” and, together with traditional public schools, “have the primary responsibility for implementing the state's system of public education....” ²⁴ Moreover, Section 12.1053 confers “governmental entity” status, “political subdivision” status, and “local government” status on open-enrollment charter schools for purposes of myriad public purchasing and contracting laws (like dealings with construction companies).²⁵

As for authority, that too derives from “laws passed by the legislature under the constitution.” ²⁶ Several statutes discuss the authority that open-enrollment charter schools may exercise under their charters. The most explicit grant of authority is Section 12.104(a), which provides that open-enrollment charter schools have “the powers granted to [traditional public] schools” under Title 2 of the Education Code.²⁷ The scope of a charter school's authority is further detailed in Section 12.102, titled “Authority Under Charter”: An open-enrollment charter school “is governed under the governing structure described by the charter” and “retains authority to operate under the charter” assuming acceptable student performance. ²⁸ But just as importantly, that section is also authority-limiting, itemizing what powers open-enrollment charter schools do not possess—namely, broad authority to impose taxes ²⁹ and tuition.³⁰

Put simply, open-enrollment charter schools wield many of the same powers as traditional public schools. They have statutory entitlements to state funding ³¹ and to the same services that school districts receive; ³² they are generally subject to “state laws and rules governing public schools”; ³³ and they are subject to the “specifically provided” provisions of and rules adopted under the Education Code.³⁴ Many specific provisions applicable to the educational programs of traditional public schools also apply to open-enrollment charter schools, including provisions relating to “the Public Education Information Management System,” reading instruments and instruction, high school graduation, special education, bilingual education, prekindergarten programs, health and safety, and “public school accountability.” ³⁵

Chapter 12 further subjects open-enrollment charter schools to a host of statutes that govern governmental entities outside the Education Code. For example, for purposes of the Government Code's regulation of open meetings and access to public information, “the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school [is] considered to be [a] governmental bod[y].” ³⁶ Likewise, for purposes of the Government Code's and Local Government Code's regulation of government records, “an open-enrollment charter school is considered to be a local government” and its records “are government records for all purposes under state law.” ³⁷ And lastly, under Section 12.1053, as noted above, an open-enrollment charter school is considered to be: (1) a “governmental entity” for purposes of Government Code and Local Government Code provisions relating to property held in trust and competitive bidding; (2) a “political subdivision” for purposes of Government Code provisions on procurement of professional services; and (3) a “local...