IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
444444444444
NO . 12-0518
444444444444
IN RE NESTLE USA, INC., RELATOR
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
JUSTICE WILLETT , joined by JUSTICE LEHRMANN , dissenting.
For the reasons explained in my separate writing in In re Allcat Claims Service, L.P.,1 I
believe the Court lacks exclusive original mandamus jurisdiction in taxpayers’ constitutional
challenges like this. In my view, the Court has stretched our mandamus jurisprudence beyond its
constitutional and prudential limits. I would reaffirm those purposeful curbs on judicial power, not
redefine them.
Mandamus is not a jurisdictional talisman to conjure instant Supreme Court review. As a
constitutional matter, we cannot exercise original jurisdiction that the Constitution does not permit;
as a statutory matter, the Tax Code disallows taxpayer suits like this; and as a prudential matter,
deciding whether a statute is constitutional is simply not the stuff of mandamus.
All in all, because I believe the Court has disregarded settled doctrines to remake the
mandamus remedy into something more ordinary than extraordinary, I respectfully dissent.
1
356 S.W .3d 455, 474–93 (Tex. 2011).
_______________________________________
Don R. Willett
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: October 19, 2012
2