.png)
Council to lay yearslong litigation to rest after previously declaring code void
City Council agreed earlier this month to formally repeal a voter- approved marijuana decriminalization ordinance, a move officials say could finally close out more than two years of litigation with the Texas Attorney General’s office.
The repeal was authorized under the Elgin Home Rule Charter, which allows council to strike a citizen-initiated ordinance two years after being passed. Voters approved the original measure in November 2022 with more than 70% in favor of eliminating enforcement for lowlevel marijuana offences. The ordinance reached the ballot through a citizen petition organized by Decriminalize Elgin, though City Attorney Mark Schroeder said it conflicted with state law from the start.
“It went to the ballot — it passed — you were subsequently sued by the attorney general because of the illegality of that ordinance,” Schroeder said. “More than two years have passed, so now you are able to repeal.”
According to Schroeder, the repeal could effectively end the legal dispute.
“If this ordinance is repealed, it would essentially make the lawsuit moot because there would be no ordinance to challenge,” he said.
The city and attorney general’s office had previously reached a consent decree in June 2024, declaring the ordinance void and removing it from Elgin’s code.
While officials agreed not to implement the ordinance, Police Chief Chris Noble said at the time the department would continue operating within the “spirit of the ordinance” by not actively pursuing lowlevel marijuana cases.
It was not addressed at the meeting whether that practice will change once the ordinance is formally repealed.
“This would just be a cleanup to put to rest any questions as to whether or not this ordinance exists and is enforceable,” Schroeder said.
Council members also asked what would happen if they declined to repeal the ordinance.
According to Schroeder, the case would continue before the Texas Supreme Court, adding more legal work and costs for the city.
The litigation remained active after the consent decree because Decriminalize Elgin Chair Courtenay Paris sought to intervene in the case. A trial court denied the request, which led to an appeal that argued the court should have first found whether the attorney general had authority to bring the lawsuit before dismissing the group’s intervention.
Richard Gladden, an attorney representing Decriminalize Elgin, said the repeal changed the legal landscape by making the Supreme Court case moot and eliminating any precedential value from lower court rulings in the case.
“What it means is the legal horizon is exactly the same way it was before the Attorney General ever filed a lawsuit,” Gladden said.
Gladden disputes the city’s position that courts have determined the ordinance violated state law. He said no Texas appellate court has ruled on the merits of whether local marijuana decriminalization ordinances are lawful, arguing previous appellate decisions involving Austin and San Marcos addressed only whether the attorney general was entitled to a temporary injunction while those cases proceeded.
He also said Decriminalize Elgin is considering circulating a new petition to place another marijuana decriminalization ordinance before voters and discussing whether to pursue recall petitions against council members who voted to repeal the measure.
Schroeder said repealing the ordinance removes the basis for the intervenors’ claims, since the city would be exercising its own charter authority to eliminate the ordinance rather than defending its legality in court.
