Teague - Supreme Court of Texas

underlying statutes were uncondntid. In Tam Stu& Board, the court comedy
reasoned that,
"[a]dmifiistrative agencies have no power to determine the codtutionality
of statutes. Accordingly, there is no sound reason for forcing a litigant
through the administrative process den in good faith he is advancing a
substantid complaint that the statute that he is charged witfi violating is
unconstitutional. The futility of reqddng the e ~ oof dmmtmt~ . . n 've
remedies in such cases is apparent. It is for this reason that exhaustion may
be excused wherein substantial comtitutiod questiofls are involved."
Id. Teague satisfies not one, but all three of the enumerated exceptions to the exhadon
of medies docbrine set forth hereinabove.
As the City p od out in its brief, the Legislature has moved the availability of
any and all injunctive relief under the statutory scheme of Chapter 214 of the Texas Local
Govermnmt Code. Therefore, no impediment exists which would prohibit the City frcm
executing their demolition order, thus rendering the statutory appeal process moot. TEX.
LOCAL GOV'T CODE §214.0012(e). Teague was compelled fo take actions outside of the
statute to protect the continued existence of his home and the continued existence of the
jurisdiction of the courts.
As stated earlier, Teague is also challenging ae dtutiodity of the underlying
ordinance and the statutory hework It is his position that both are uncdtuticml as
they violate his rights of due process both on their face and as applied. The City is in no
positim and has no authority to decide the cmtitutiodty of its own ordinances or of
state law in general. Clearly, it would be illogical to require Teague to follow the very