IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

═════════_= 52;══

No. 06-0516

════════λ= 2;═══

City of Elsa, Texas, = Petitioner,

M.A.L., et al.,=20 Respondents

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth = District of=20 Texas

═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;══════════= ;══════════&#= 9552;

PER = CURIAM

In = this case=20 we reaffirm that (1) =93sue and be sued=94 provisions in city charters = do not waive=20 immunity from suit for monetary damages, and (2) governmental entities = may be=20 sued for injunctive relief under the Texas Constitution.

This case=20 arose after three police officers resigned from the City of Elsa=92s = police force.=20 A local news station reported that the police officers left the force = after=20 positive drug tests. The three officers then sued the City, alleging = that it had=20 improperly disclosed medical information under the Medical Practice Act, = Tex. Occ. Code =A7=A7 = 159.001-.010, had=20 improperly disclosed information not subject to the Open Records Act, = Tex. Gov=92t Code =A7=A7 = 552.001-.353, and=20 had engaged in =93deprivations of privacy and confidential rights, = privileges and=20 immunities secured by the laws and Constitution of Texas under Article = I,=20 Section 8 and 19.=94 The former officers generally alleged entitlement = to monetary=20 damages. They also sought equitable and injunctive relief for the = alleged=20 constitutional violations.

The = City=20 filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. The City = then=20 filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its plea. The Thirteenth = Court of=20 Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. 192 S.W.3d 678.

The = court of=20 appeals affirmed the trial court=92s denial of the plea as to the = statutory=20 claims, holding that a =93sue and be sued=94 provision in the City=92s = charter waived=20 the City=92s immunity from suit. Id. at 681-82. The court = reversed and=20 remanded the trial court=92s denial of the plea as to the constitutional = claims.=20 As to the alleged constitutional violations the court of appeals held = that to=20 the extent the plaintiffs=92 pleadings sought monetary damages, such = claims were=20 invalid but that equitable relief could be sought. Concluding that the=20 plaintiffs=92 request for injunctive relief merely asked for an = injunction to=20 prevent the City =93from taking any further action that would = jeopardize=94 their=20 employment and liberty interests, the pleadings =93failed to = affirmatively=20 demonstrate the trial court=92s jurisdiction over their claim for = prospective=20 injunctive relief=94 because the plaintiffs pleaded only =93mere fear or = apprehension of possible injury=94 in the future. The constitutional = claims were=20 remanded to allow plaintiffs to amend their petition.

After the=20 court of appeals issued its decision, we held that a =93sue and be = sued=94 provision=20 in a city charter does not, by itself, constitute an unambiguous waiver = of=20 governmental immunity. See Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d = 325, 344=20 (Tex. 2006); Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d = 371, 378=20 (Tex. 2006). The court of appeals=92 decision regarding statutory claims = is=20 inconsistent with our holdings in Tooke and Reata. We = therefore=20 reverse the part of the court of appeals=92 judgment that affirmed = denial of the=20 City=92s plea to the jurisdiction as to the claims for monetary = relief.

The = City=20 further asserts that the court of appeals should have dismissed the = claims for=20 injunctive relief rather than remanding those claims to the trial court. = The=20 City argues that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the case = because the=20 plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against the City itself, rather than = against=20 the officials alleged to have committed unauthorized acts. The City = relies on=20 Bagg v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, 726 = S.W.2d 582=20 (Tex. App.=97Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref=92d n.r.e.), in support = of this=20 argument. In Bagg, the court of appeals held that =93when a = plaintiff seeks=20 injunctive relief that involves an activity of a state agency he must = sue some=20 individual in authority at that agency; he may not sue the agency = itself.=94=20 Id. at 584-85. The court in Bagg reasoned that = =93[u]nlawful or=20 unauthorized actions are not considered acts of the = state. . . .=20 If the alleged wrongful actions are not state actions, the state cannot = be the=20 proper party to sue.=94 Id. at 585.

The = Bagg holding is inconsistent with this Court=92s later holding in = City=20 of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. 1995). In = Bouillion,=20 we held that although there is no =93implied private right of action for = damages=20 against governmental entities for violations of the Texas = Constitution,=94 suits=20 for =93equitable remedies for violation of constitutional rights are not = prohibited.=94 Id. at 144, 149. We stated that =93suits for = injunctive=20 relief=94 may be maintained against governmental entities to remedy = violations of=20 the Texas Constitution. Id. at 149. After our decision in=20 Bouillion, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals acknowledged = Bagg was=20 no longer good law, stating that =93[s]ince this court=92s Bagg = decision, the=20 Texas Supreme Court, in the City of Beaumont v. Bouillion has = held that=20 while there is no cause of action for damages for the violation of state = constitutional rights, a plaintiff whose constitutional rights have been = violated may sue the state for equitable relief.=94 Vriesendorp v. = M.D.=20 Anderson Cancer Ctr., No. 14‑97‑00354‑CV, 1998 = Tex. App. LEXIS 4146 (Tex.=20 App.=97Houston [14th Dist.] July 9, 1998, pet. denied) (not designated = for=20 publication). We conclude that the court of appeals did not err by = refusing to=20 dismiss the plaintiffs=92 claims for injunctive relief based on alleged=20 constitutional violations.

Accordingly,=20 we grant the City=92s petition for review. Without hearing oral = argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, we = reverse the=20 part of the court of appeals=92 judgment affirming denial of the plea to = the=20 jurisdiction as to the claims for monetary relief and we order that = those claims=20 be dismissed. We affirm the part of the court of appeals=92 judgment = that remands=20 the claims for injunctive relief to the trial court.

OPINION=20 DELIVERED: June 1, 2007