law-constitutionality-presumption | constitutional challenges
Courts are to presume that a statute is constitutional and should not reach a constitutional issue unless
absolutely required. See Pena v. State, 191 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“'If there is one
doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we
ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable.'" (quoting
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 690 (1997))); Walker v. Gutierrez, 111 S.W.3d 56, 66 (Tex. 2003) (“We
begin our analysis by presuming the statute is constitutional."); Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246, 250
(Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (noting court's “reluctance to decide constitutional questions unless absolutely
necessary"). Further, courts should decide constitutional issues narrowly based on the precise facts of
the case, not speculative or hypothetical injuries. See Pena, 191 S.W.3d at 136 (following U.S. Supreme
Court practice “not 'to formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts
to which it is to be applied'" (quoting Clinton, 520 U.S. at 690)); Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs. v.
Dickensheets, 274 S.W.3d 150, 155 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“Facial invalidity
cannot be premised on 'hypothetical facts that have not yet arisen.'" (quoting Tex. Boll Weevil Eradication
Found., Inc. v. Lewellen, 952 S.W.2d 454, 463 (Tex. 1997))); Valero Refining-Tex. L.P. v. State, 203 S.W.
3d 556, 563 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (rejecting constitutional challenge based on
“hypothetical analysis" and noting appellant did not bring forth sufficient record to show the facts
surrounding his conduct to support a constitutional violation). A statute cannot be unconstitutional based
only on harm to another; there must be an actual injury to the litigant in the present case. See Santikos,
836 S.W.2d at 633 ("[I]t is incumbent upon the [appellant] to show that in its operation the statute is
unconstitutional as to him in his situation; that is may be unconstitutional as to others is not sufficient."
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Meshell, 739 S.W.2d at 205 (“Before a court decides an issue
involving the constitutionality of a statute, it must first assure itself that the party raising such a claim has
presently been injured by the statute."); Ex Parte Dave, 220 S.W.3d 154, 156 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth
2007, pet. ref'd) (“That the statute may be unconstitutional as applied to others is insufficient to support a
facial challenge.").
In Re CMD (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 25, 2009)(Yates)
(paternity, nonpaternity, adoption: constitutionality of paternity registry statute)
Decision: TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CASE AND REMANDED:
Opinion by Justice Leslie Brock Yates
Panel members: Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Brock Yates and Guzman
14-08-00113-CV In Re C.M.D.
Appeal from 328th District Court of Fort Bend County