New Texas Summary Judgment Rules Are Now In Effect: Expedited Action and Challenges for Litigants to Navigate

At the behest of the State Legislature (SB 293), the Texas Supreme Court recently finalized and adopted amendments to Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The amended rule substantially modifies the deadlines for trial courts and attorneys to respond to summary judgment motion practice filed on or after March 1, 2026.^[1]

The previous rule only imposed two filing deadlines: the moving party had to file its motion and supporting evidence 21 days prior to the summary judgment hearing, and the opposing party had to respond with its own evidence at least seven days before. The only timeline requirement on the trial court was that it could not refuse a party’s request for a ruling within a “reasonable” time—often meaning at least six months to a year. 

Under the amended rule, responding parties must now file their summary judgment responses within 21 days of the motion being filed, absent specific justification for an extension. And trial courts are imposed with new deadlines that never previously existed. They first must set the motion for hearing or submission within 35 to 60 days, and the hearing date may only be extended for another 30 days: (i) if the court’s docket requires; (ii) on a showing of good cause; or (iii) if the movant agrees. Trial courts also have a new deadline to rule. It is now mandatory that they issue written summary judgment decisions within 90 days of the scheduled hearing or submission date. 

The new rule will certainly expedite summary judgment practice in Texas state court. But the rule also presents a number of potential challenges for litigants, including that:

1. The rule’s expedited deadlines – exacerbated by busy trial court dockets and limited hearing availability – may make it difficult to obtain hearings to challenge premature summary judgment motions or to obtain timely extension orders. 

2. The new rule suggests that the withdrawal of summary judgment motions must be “filed” – meaning that an email to the court coordinator may no longer suffice to pull down the motion or extinguish the court’s mandatory deadline to rule.

3. Courts with busy dockets are likely to push more summary judgment motion practice to submission hearings, inhibiting litigants from an opportunity to argue factual nuances or legal positions at oral argument. 

Courts throughout Texas have already begun responding to the rule changes. In Dallas County, twelve of the thirteen Civil District Judges adopted a general order requiring that all summary judgment be filed at least 90 days before the trial setting.^[2] Any summary judgment filed within 90 days of trial will be automatically denied absent leave of court. And if trial is rescheduled while a summary judgment motion remains pending, the summary judgment hearing may only be set if the new trial date is at least 90 days away. These measures are evidently aimed to prevent new Rule 166a from overburdening Dallas trial courts on the eve of trial dates.

Litigants have their own opportunities to avoid unanticipated summary judgment filings and mandatory deadlines from impacting their cases under the new rule. Among other things, what parties ask to include in initial docket control and scheduling orders is more important than ever. By moving at the outset of litigation to limit summary judgment filing timelines (e.g., such that summary judgment motions may not be filed until at least 30 days before the close of discovery), they may be able to neutralize the new summary judgment rule and its mandatory response requirements from taking over their entire case.  

The new rule undoubtedly has its advantages and aims to expedite litigation in Texas state courts. Parties' ability to understand and navigate the rule changes will nonetheless remain paramount.