Texas Supreme Court weighs SpaceX beach closures against public access rights

The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in a lawsuit challenging the state’s authority to close Boca Chica Beach for SpaceX rocket launches, with justices pressing both sides on where constitutional limits on public beach access begin and end. Environmental and indigenous groups sued the Texas General Land Office and Cameron County over a 2013 state law permitting some counties to temporarily bar the public from Gulf Coast beaches during space flight activities. The case tests the scope of the Texas Constitution’s Open Beaches Amendment, which grants the public an “unrestricted right” to use public beaches.

The ruling could determine whether Texas’ expanding rocket industry can continue to leverage state police power to close a public beach as launch frequency rises — and whether private citizens hold the right to challenge such closures in court at all.

The Texas Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments in a constitutional challenge to a state law that allows Cameron County to temporarily close Boca Chica Beach when SpaceX conducts rocket launches from its adjacent South Texas facility.

Rio Grande Valley environmental and indigenous groups — Save RGV, the Sierra Club, and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas — brought the suit against the Texas General Land Office and Cameron County. The groups argue that Texas House Bill 2623, a 2013 law permitting some counties to bar the public from Gulf Coast beaches for space flight activities, violates the Open Beaches Amendment to the Texas Constitution, which grants the public an “unrestricted right” to use public beaches. The lawsuit is one of several that local advocates have filed over the years challenging SpaceX’s expanding footprint and launch frequency in South Texas.

The Federal Aviation Administration last year authorized SpaceX to conduct up to 25 rocket launches annually at the Boca Chica site, up from the five launches per year the company was previously permitted. Each launch closes the roughly 8-mile beach that lies adjacent to the launch pad.

State argues limited right, valid police power

Beth Klusmann, deputy solicitor general for the Texas Attorney General’s Office, argued for the state that the Open Beaches Amendment did not promise every person access to every Gulf Coast beach at all times. “It is a more limited right,” Klusmann said. “The question, of course, then is what are those limits.”

Klusmann argued that HB 2623 fell within Texas’ valid exercise of police power because it protects members of the public during rocket launches and furthers the state’s interest in the space industry. She acknowledged limits exist. In response to a hypothetical from Justice Evan A. Young — who asked whether 365 consecutive days of closure would go too far — Klusmann said it likely would. “I think 365 days probably would exceed the police power in this case given the obvious interest of the people in enacting this amendment and putting it in the Constitution, but we’re nowhere near 365 days,” she said.

The court also pressed Klusmann on why the amendment’s “unrestricted right” language should not itself limit the state’s police power. She pointed to prior court opinions holding that “unrestricted use” of property is not exempt from police-power regulation. “I could give someone the unrestricted use of my backyard but the cities can still come in and say you can’t put a gas station there,” she said.

Plaintiffs say closures facilitate a hazardous activity

Attorney Marisa Perales, representing the environmental and indigenous groups, argued that HB 2623 should be struck down because the beach closures exist solely to enable a hazardous activity that puts the public in danger in the first place. Justice Debra H. Lehrmann asked Perales where the line between permissible and impermissible closures fell. “Where’s that line?” Lehrmann said.

Perales could not specify the precise threshold, prompting Lehrmann to reply, “So I don’t know that that’s a sufficient answer.”

Justice Young asked Perales whether the constitutional argument would hold even if SpaceX conducted only one launch per year. She said it would, based on the plain text of the amendment. Perales also argued that the same plain language would prohibit state law enforcement from staging a beach-exclusion exercise, though she said a police-power analysis might allow such activity to proceed.

Standing dispute: who can sue?

A separate question consumed a portion of the argument: whether private citizens have legal standing to challenge the law at all.

James P. Allison, attorney for Cameron County, argued the Open Beaches Act created no private right of enforcement, meaning residents could not bring suit to contest the closures. He contended that state agencies retained the authority to file challenges.

Justice Jimmy Blacklock said that reading could render the constitutional provision effectively unenforceable. Justice Jane N. Bland posed a sharper question: if the state is the alleged violator and also the only party with enforcement authority, how could its own constitutional violation ever be remedied? Allison did not directly answer.

Perales countered that private citizens retain the right to sue the government to remedy constitutional violations, and she noted that in this case Cameron County — itself a governmental actor — was among the parties blocking beach access.