Texas’ experiment with specialized Business Courts is no longer theoretical—it is now a rapidly developing and increasingly consequential part of the state’s judicial system.
Created under Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code, the Business Courts officially became effective on September 1, 2023, with jurisdiction over qualifying actions beginning September 1, 2024. What began as an effort to streamline complex commercial disputes has, in just over a year, expanded in scope, tested its procedural boundaries, and begun to generate meaningful case law.
But with that growth has come a new set of challenges, strategic considerations, and even constitutional questions.
The experienced attorneys at Brousseau Naftis & Massingill, P.C. have represented clients in business matters for decades. For more information, contact us today for a no-obligation consultation.
A System Expanding in Real Time
The Texas Business Courts were designed to handle high-stakes commercial disputes more efficiently than traditional trial courts. Operating in major metropolitan areas (including Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Houston) these courts exercise the same powers as district courts, with judges appointed by the Governor.
Initially, their jurisdiction was relatively narrow, particularly with respect to the amount in controversy required for certain cases. That changed significantly with the passage of Texas House Bill 40 (H.B. 40), which took effect on September 1, 2025.
H.B. 40 lowered the minimum amount-in-controversy threshold for qualified transactions to $5 million and expanded jurisdiction to include claims involving intellectual property, the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and arbitration-related disputes. These changes dramatically increased the number and types of cases eligible for filing in—or removal to—the Business Courts.
The result has been immediate: more cases, more complexity, and more strategic use of the forum by litigants.
From Concept to Courtroom
In their early days, the Business Courts faced skepticism as to whether they would function as intended. That question is now being answered in real time.
The first bench trial took place in November 2025, marking a critical milestone in demonstrating that the courts could move cases from filing to resolution. Just a few months later, on February 10, 2026, the first jury trial began, resulting in a verdict awarding the plaintiff partial ownership in an oil and gas venture, as well as management rights and $2.4 million in attorney’s fees.
At the same time, filings have steadily increased. The first year of the Courts saw 185 total case filings; within the first six months of their second year, 141 cases had already been filed. This trajectory reflects a growing reliance on the system, particularly following the jurisdictional expansion under H.B. 40.
Jurisdictional Strategy Emerges
With expanded jurisdiction has come increased litigation over whether a party can replead its claims to destroy jurisdiction.
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue. The court held that a plaintiff may amend or reshape its pleadings after removal to the Business Court to defeat jurisdiction. However, that flexibility comes with a significant limitation: any claim, theory, or form of relief that is expressly abandoned to strip the court of jurisdiction cannot later be revived.
Plaintiffs seeking remand must carefully weigh the benefits of returning to a traditional trial court against the permanent loss of certain claims. Defendants, meanwhile, must be prepared to challenge such maneuvers and anticipate how pleadings may evolve post-removal.
Constitutional Questions
As the Business Courts grow, their constitutionality is now being challenged.
In Brown v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, a plaintiff contests the constitutionality of the Business Court system. The underlying case involves a former high-ranking Exxon executive alleging race discrimination following his termination in 2025 after nearly 30 years with the company.
The plaintiff argues that because the Business Courts exercise the powers of district courts, they must comply with Article V of the Texas Constitution, which requires judges to be elected and courts to adhere to established districting requirements. According to the motion, the legislature cannot sidestep these requirements by creating a parallel system of appointed judges with equivalent authority.
This challenge raises fundamental questions about the structure of Texas’ judiciary and could have far-reaching implications depending on how the courts resolve it.
Still the Wild West?
The Texas Business Courts were envisioned as a solution to the growing complexity of commercial litigation. In many ways, they are beginning to fulfill that role—handling significant disputes, conducting trials, and attracting a growing docket of cases. Recently, these Courts have revised their local rules, addressing the sealing of court records, remote proceedings, submission of amicus briefs, adding default deadlines for responses to non-dispositive motions, expanding requirements related to counsel of record and electronic service enrollment, and clarifying procedures for removed cases.
In addition to these formal rule changes, individual Business Court judges have updated their own procedures and forms, requiring practitioners to stay current not only with statewide rules but also with court-specific practices.
At the same time, the system remains in flux. Jurisdiction is broader but still contested. Procedures are more defined but continue to evolve. And now, the very foundation of the courts faces constitutional scrutiny.
But for all their progress, one thing remains unchanged: navigating these courts still requires a willingness to adapt, a close eye on developments, and a comfort with uncertainty.
