Here is a summary and analysis of Gonzalez v. Texas Medical Board (No. 24 0340, Tex. Oct. 31, 2025). You can read the full opinion here.
Summary
Facts:
• Reynaldo Gonzalez Jr. holds a medical degree (M.D.) and a law degree, but is not licensed to practice medicine in Texas.
• During a campaign for U.S. House of Representatives, Gonzalez used titles such as “Dr. Gonzalez” and “physician” in his materials, though he lacked a medical license.
• The Texas Medical Board (TMB) investigated and determined that his use of those titles violated the Texas Medical Practice Act and the Healing Art Identification Act. They issued a cease and desist order prohibiting Gonzalez from using “doctor,” “physician,” or “Dr.” without stating his lack of a license.
• Gonzalez sued in district court seeking:
o A declaration that the statutes and the order were unconstitutional (facially and as applied) (free speech and due process arguments)
o An injunction preventing TMB from enforcing the order and/or the statutes.
o He also challenged TMB’s authority (ultra vires claim) and challenged the order as lacking substantial evidence.
• The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction (via plea to the jurisdiction). The court of appeals affirmed most dismissals but remanded the facial constitutional claim.
Issue(s):
• Does the “redundant remedies doctrine” bar Gonzalez’s ultra vires and constitutional as applied claims because he could have pursued review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?
• Is TMB’s order subject to judicial review under the APA (substantial evidence review)?
• Are Gonzalez’s facial and as applied constitutional challenges permissible given the statutory and regulatory scheme?
Holding:
• The Supreme Court of Texas held:
o The redundant remedies doctrine does not bar Gonzalez’s ultra vires and as applied constitutional claims because those claims seek relief beyond what the APA can provide (i.e., injunctions against future enforcement).
o The court affirmed dismissal of Gonzalez’s claim that the cease and desist order lacked substantial evidence (because the APA provides no statutory basis for judicial review of the order).
o The court remanded the facial constitutional claim (and the as applied and ultra vires claims) to the trial court for further proceedings.
Analysis
Key legal principles:
1. Redundant Remedies Doctrine:
o Under Texas law, if a statute provides an administrative or statutory remedy, a litigant generally cannot pursue a parallel common law claim that duplicates the statutory remedy.
o The Court clarified that a claim is not barred if it seeks relief beyond what the statutory scheme allows (e.g., future injunctions/prevention rather than review of a past decision). This is significant because it preserves ultra vires and constitutional claims even where an administrative path exists, provided the relief sought is different.
o The decision emphasizes that distinguishing what relief is sought (e.g., future enforcement vs. past order) is critical when applying redundant remedies analysis.
2. APA Review vs Other Claims:
o The APA sets out a mechanism for reviewing agency orders (including substantial evidence review) but only when the statute provides for it. In this case, the statute did not provide for judicial review of TMB’s order.
o Therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Gonzalez’s substantial evidence claim (because without statutory review right, courts lack subject matter jurisdiction).
o The Court thereby reinforced the principle that judicial review is limited to what statute authorises, and one cannot bootstrap a review claim without a statutory basis.
3. Facial and As Applied Constitutional Challenges:
o The case reiterates that constitutional challenges (both facial and as applied) remain viable even when an administrative path exists—but the availability of the administrative path doesn’t automatically eliminate constitutional claims unless the remedy is entirely redundant.
o The Court’s remand means that Gonzalez now gets the opportunity to litigate his constitutional claims in district court (subject to other jurisdictional limitations).
Significance:
• This is a notable decision for administrative law jurisprudence in Texas. It clarifies and slightly narrows the redundant remedies doctrine, preserving access to courts for constitutional and ultra vires claims seeking injunctive relief.
• For licensing boards and regulated persons, it highlights that orders which may not carry a statutory review path can still be challenged via constitutional or ultra vires claims—especially for prospective relief.
• It also underscores caution for agencies that issue cease and desist orders: although the order may not be reviewable via APA, affected persons may still challenge the agency’s enforcement or regulation prospectively.
Potential concerns/criticisms:
• From the agency’s perspective, allowing ultra vires and constitutional claims even when a statutory path exists could increase litigation and reduce regulatory certainty.
• From a regulated‐person’s perspective, while the decision allows an injunction or prospective relief, it still holds that, in absence of a statutory review right, claims for declaratory relief regarding past orders may be jurisdictionally barred.
• Practically, the remand leaves open many factual and procedural issues (e.g., Sch. of judicial review deadlines, timing of raised claims) which may create complexity in future cases.
Bottom line
Gonzalez v. Texas Medical Board stands for the proposition that even when an agency action falls under a licensing scheme and the APA, a person may still argue ultra vires or constitutional claims if the relief sought is not merely duplicative of the administrative review path. While the person could not challenge the existing order under the APA (because statutory review was not provided), he may challenge future enforcement of the regulatory scheme under constitutional and ultra vires grounds. The case gives regulated entities and boards a refined map of when regulated persons can circumvent the typical administrative review route and go directly to court.
The Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries, severe burns, commercial plane crashes and commercial trucking crashes nationwide, and especially in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. James E. Girards is a private pilot licensed to fly single- and multi-engine aircraft in both visual and instrument conditions. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.