Federal Judge Blocks Austin’s Attempt to Reclaim ETJ Authority

Estimated Time to Read: 12 minutes

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the City of Austin from reasserting regulatory authority over roughly 170 properties previously released from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). On August 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted a preliminary injunction in Property Owners Withstanding ETJ Retractions (POWER) v. City of Austin, preventing Austin from enforcing its March 2026 decision to reverse previous releases of properties from its ETJ.

The ruling is an important early test of Senate Bill 2038 (SB 2038), legislation passed by Texas lawmakers in the 88th Legislative Session (2023) that gave qualifying property owners and residents a way to remove land from municipal ETJs. It also raises a larger question about how far a municipality can go when it decides that a property release it previously recognized was made in error.

Pitman's order does not finally resolve the lawsuit. Nor did the judge decide whether the Bee Caves Armory, which sits near the affected properties, qualifies as a "military base" under the exception contained in state law. Instead, the court found that the property owners are likely to succeed in showing that Austin deprived them of protected property interests without adequate due process and likely exceeded its legal authority when it attempted to rescind completed ETJ releases.

The immediate issue before the court was not simply whether Austin ultimately reached the correct interpretation of SB 2038. It was whether the city could unilaterally take back jurisdiction it had already relinquished, after property owners had relied on those releases, without first giving them a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision.

Senate Bill 2038 Changed Texas ETJ Law

An extraterritorial jurisdiction is an unincorporated area outside a municipality's corporate boundaries where the city can nevertheless exercise certain regulatory powers. Under Texas law, the size of an ETJ generally depends on municipal population and can extend as far as five miles beyond the city limits for municipalities with populations of 100,000 or more.

That arrangement has long created tension between municipal regulatory authority and property owners who live outside the municipality itself. In 2023, the Texas Legislature changed that balance with SB 2038, authored by State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston). The law created new procedures allowing qualifying residents and landowners to petition for release from a municipality's ETJ. For landowners, the statutory language is notably mandatory. If the petition satisfies the requirements established by law, "the municipality shall immediately release the area" from its ETJ. If the municipality fails to act within the statutory deadline, the area is released by operation of law.

Senate Bill 2038 also addressed what happens afterward. Once an area is released under the process, the law says it generally may not be placed back inside a municipality's ETJ or corporate boundaries unless the owners subsequently request inclusion. The legislation did include exceptions. One of those exceptions, which became central to the Austin dispute, excludes property located within five miles of the boundary of a "military base" where an active training program is conducted.

The question of how that exception applies to the Bee Caves Armory would eventually place Austin and approximately 170 property owners on opposite sides of a federal lawsuit.

Austin Tried to Reverse 170 ETJ Releases

Between 2023 and early 2026, Austin released approximately 170 properties located within five miles of the Bee Caves Armory from its ETJ.

According to the court, Austin issued letters informing property owners that they had met the statutory requirements and that their properties would be formally released. Once those releases took effect, the properties fell under the regulatory authority of Travis County rather than Austin's ETJ.

For some property owners, that was not merely a change on a jurisdictional map. They began making decisions based on the understanding that Austin no longer exercised ETJ authority over their land. The lawsuit alleges that property owners invested in architectural plans, permitting, construction contracts and development projects in reliance on their releases. Others entered or contemplated property transactions. One plaintiff, the Schoenstatt Movement of Austin, says it invested resources into expanding its facilities after Austin confirmed its property would be released.

Then, in March 2026, Austin changed its position. The city informed affected property owners that their earlier release letters had been "issued in error and are void and of no force or effect." Austin had concluded that the Bee Caves Armory qualified as a military base under Texas law and that properties within five miles of the facility therefore could not use Senate Bill 2038's automatic-release process.

The reversal had immediate consequences. The plaintiffs alleged that development projects stalled, investments were placed at risk and pending property sales faced cancellation. They also claimed some property values had fallen dramatically because Austin's land-use restrictions again applied to the properties. More importantly for the federal court's eventual ruling, Austin did not establish a process through which those owners could contest the city's new determination before it took effect.

The city's letters informed them that "no administrative appeal process is available for this determination."

For Austin, then, the legal problem was not simply that the city changed its interpretation of state law. It changed that interpretation after approximately 170 properties had already been released, after some property owners had relied on those releases for years, and without giving them a process to challenge the city's new determination.

Why the Judge Blocked Austin’s ETJ Reversal

Judge Pitman's analysis focused heavily on procedural due process.

To establish a procedural due process claim, the property owners had to show that government action deprived them of a protected interest and that the process provided by the government was inadequate. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to satisfy both requirements.

Pitman found that the owners had obvious protected interests in their real property, but he went further. He concluded that they also had a protected property interest in the privilege resulting from their successful removal from Austin's ETJ. Government-conferred privileges can become protected property interests for purposes of procedural due process, particularly when people rely on them in making decisions about their property or livelihood.

Once that protected interest existed, the question became what Austin did before taking it away. The answer was essentially nothing. The city did not provide a hearing before declaring the releases void. It did not provide an administrative appeal. Instead, it notified the owners that their properties were once again within Austin's ETJ and subject to the city's regulatory authority. Pitman concluded that Austin's "complete lack of process" increased the risk that property owners could be erroneously deprived of their rights and found that some form of pre-deprivation procedure would not have imposed an excessive burden on the city.

"Due process demands more than no hearing at all," the court wrote.

The property owners also challenged whether Austin possessed the legal authority to rescind the releases in the first place. They argued that nothing in Chapter 42 of the Local Government Code authorizes a municipality to "reconsider, revisit, rescind, or void a completed release." Austin countered that the original releases were void from the beginning because the properties were never eligible for the automatic-release process.

That distinction between something being legally void and merely voidable became important.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, Austin acknowledged that properties covered by the military-base exception could still potentially be released through another provision of Texas law. The exception prevents certain properties from using SB 2038's automatic-release procedure, but it does not categorically prohibit those properties from ever being released from an ETJ.

That undermined Austin's contention that its previous actions necessarily had no legal effect from the beginning.

The court was also skeptical of the city's explanation for how it administered the law. Austin maintained that Senate Bill 2038 imposed no duty on the city to investigate whether an exception applied when processing the original petitions. At the same time, the city maintained that it could later conduct that inquiry, determine the properties were never eligible and reverse the completed releases. Pitman called that position a "nonsensical proposition."

He ultimately concluded that the property owners are likely to succeed in showing Austin acted ultra vires, or beyond its legal authority, when it rescinded the completed releases and reasserted ETJ authority.

The court also found that allowing Austin to enforce its decision while the lawsuit proceeds could cause irreparable harm. Property owners alleged that projects and transactions had already been halted and that they faced potential regulatory enforcement. Pitman also recognized the alleged loss of constitutional due process protections as a form of irreparable injury.

Austin argued that its ETJ regulations serve legitimate purposes, including protecting water quality and sensitive resources such as the Edwards Aquifer and Barton Springs. Pitman did not reject the legitimacy of those concerns. He instead concluded that they did not give Austin a valid interest in unconstitutional or likely unauthorized conduct.

The resulting preliminary injunction prohibits Austin from enforcing its March 2026 retractions based on the properties' proximity to the Bee Caves Armory while the lawsuit continues.

Court Did Not Decide the Military Base Question

One of the most important limitations of the ruling is what Pitman did not decide. The property owners argue that the Bee Caves Armory does not qualify as a "military base" under the statutory exception. Their complaint describes the armory as a Texas Army National Guard facility located on federally owned land leased to the state and operated under state authority. They further contend that the Department of Defense does not possess unilateral authority to close or realign the facility.

Austin disagrees with that interpretation. But Pitman did not need to choose between them to resolve the request for preliminary relief. The judge repeatedly emphasized that interpreting the military-base exception was unnecessary to deciding whether Austin violated procedural due process or acted beyond its authority when it attempted to reverse releases that had already occurred.

That means the preliminary injunction should not be read as a final determination that all 170 properties unquestionably qualified for automatic release under SBl 2038. Instead, the ruling addresses a different question: even if Austin believed it had previously applied the law incorrectly, could the city simply declare those completed releases void and immediately reassert regulatory authority over the properties?

At this stage of the litigation, Pitman's answer was that the property owners are likely to succeed in showing it could not.

Austin ETJ Ruling Could Shape Senate Bill 2038

The broader significance of the Austin ETJ lawsuit may ultimately extend beyond the properties surrounding the Bee Caves Armory.

Senate Bill 2038 was intended to change the relationship between municipalities and property owners living outside city limits but subject to municipal regulatory authority. This case exposes an important question the original legislation did not expressly resolve: how final is an ETJ release once it has occurred? That is not an abstract concern. A property owner who receives confirmation that land has been released from an ETJ may make decisions that cannot easily be undone. Development plans can change. Contracts can be signed. Financing can be secured. Property can be bought or sold. Businesses and organizations can invest substantial amounts of money based on the regulatory environment that applies to their land.

If a municipality can revisit that determination years later and unilaterally declare a completed release void, the value of the statutory protection becomes considerably less certain. That does not mean a municipality should be forever prohibited from challenging a release that was actually unlawful. But the Austin case illustrates why there must be clear rules governing who can make that determination, under what circumstances it can be made, and what process property owners receive before government reasserts jurisdiction over their land.

The Texas Legislature could provide some of that clarity. Lawmakers could more precisely define what constitutes a "military base" for purposes of the exception, particularly as it applies to Texas National Guard facilities. They could also clarify whether completed ETJ releases can ever be reconsidered, who has authority to challenge them, what legal standard applies, and what notice and opportunity to be heard must precede any attempt to restore municipal jurisdiction.

There is already some indication that the issue could return to the Legislature. Pitman's order notes that Austin told the court it suspected lawmakers would amend SB 2038 in a future legislative session to address the dispute. The judge rejected the idea that speculation about future legislation justified delaying adjudication of the constitutional claims before him. If lawmakers do revisit the law, however, clarification should not become an excuse to undo the fundamental policy choice embodied in SB 2038.

ETJ authority is unusual because it allows a municipality to exercise regulatory power outside its corporate boundaries. Texas law expressly provides that simply being inside an ETJ does not authorize a municipality to impose a tax there. Yet affected property owners can still find themselves subject to municipal land-use regulations despite residing outside the city and lacking the same political relationship to the municipal government as residents inside its boundaries.

Senate Bill 2038 shifted some of that power back toward property owners. The Austin litigation is now testing how durable that shift actually is.

The lawsuit is far from over, and Pitman has not decided whether the Bee Caves Armory ultimately triggers Senate Bill 2038's military-base exception. But Austin's attempt to reclaim jurisdiction over these properties has exposed a question Texas lawmakers may eventually need to answer more explicitly: once government tells a property owner that land has been released from municipal jurisdiction, how easily should government be allowed to take that freedom back?

---