The State of Texas signed a ten-year lease for office space. When the State later terminated the lease and stopped paying rent, the landlord sued for breach of contract. In an ordinary commercial dispute, that would be an obvious claim. But in State v. Broadmoor Austin Associates,1 the Fifteenth Court of Appeals held that sovereign immunity barred it.
The reason reveals an irony in Texas law. The Legislature requires the State to be the lessee when it leases office space for state agencies. But the Court held that the statutory waiver of immunity for certain breach-of-contract claims applies to state agencies, not the State itself, so Broadmoor could not sue the State for breach of contract. Nor could Broadmoor sue the agencies involved, because they were not parties to the lease.
But another claim survived.
Broadmoor also sued the executive director of the Texas Facilities Commission, which manages office leases for state agencies. Broadmoor alleged that he terminated the lease without following the Commission’s own rules. The Fifteenth Court held that those allegations were sufficient to allow the claim to proceed.
This type of claim is known as an ultra vires claim. Texas law allows a plaintiff to sue a government official who acts without legal authority, even when immunity prevents a suit against the government itself. Unlike an ordinary claim for damages, an ultra vires claim generally seeks prospective relief requiring the official to comply with the law. In Broadmoor, the Fifteenth Court allowed the landlord to pursue an order withdrawing the termination notice and restoring the lease going forward.
Both sides have asked the Texas Supreme Court to review different parts of the decision. The State argues, among other things, that the surviving ultra vires claim improperly attempts to accomplish what sovereign immunity prevents through a contract action.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, Broadmoor illustrates an important feature of litigation against government: even when government has violated a legal obligation, the obvious claim may not be available. Obtaining judicial relief may require a different defendant, a different cause of action, and a different remedy.
Footnote
1. State v. Broadmoor Austin Associates, No. 15-25-00013-CV, 2026 WL 668284 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Mar. 10, 2026, pets. filed)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]