Brett Busby

Justice Busby emphasized rule of law and judicial restraint, stating that a judge’s role is to “interpret the Constitution and laws as they were written, not to legislate from the bench,” and to decide cases “as the law requires,” rather than based on personal preferences.

In regard to the proper role of the court, Justice Busby stated it's to “decide cases,” and not to “elaborate and expand laws in order to make them easier to understand or enforce[.]"

In State v. Loe (2024), Justice Busby concurred separately in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision upholding Senate Bill 14, which restricts certain gender-transition treatments for minors. The Court held that the law did not violate parents’ constitutional rights because the specific treatments were new and not deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Busby agreed with that result but stressed that parents still have broad, constitutionally protected authority over traditional decisions about raising and caring for their children. He warned that courts should not define parental rights based simply on what the government has authority to regulate. Instead, courts must first determine whether the particular parental decision is historically protected.

In In re Dallas HERO (2024), Justice Busby wrote the Court’s opinion, holding that three Dallas City Council ballot propositions could not appear on the ballot because their wording would confuse voters. The issue was whether the Council could put competing propositions on the ballot that could override citizen-initiated amendments. Busby emphasized that voters must be given ballot language that clearly explains a proposition’s purpose and important features. Because the Council’s propositions conflicted with the citizen initiatives without explaining those conflicts, the Court ordered them removed from the ballot. Busby’s opinion strongly emphasized protecting voters from misleading ballot language and preserving the people’s power to use ballot initiatives.

In Ferguson v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety (2021), Justice Busby concurred in the Texas Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Ferguson’s challenge to the suspension of his handgun license. Busby agreed that the Court should not decide whether the Second Amendment protects carrying a handgun in public because Ferguson had not raised that argument in the trial court. He also noted that a new Texas law would soon allow most adults to carry handguns without a license, making the issue less important. Busby emphasized that courts should decide the actual case before them rather than reach constitutional questions that are unnecessary to the outcome.

In In re State of Texas (2020), Justice Busby joined Justice Guzman’s concurrence in the Texas Supreme Court’s COVID-19 mail-in voting case. The issue was whether any voter who lacked immunity to COVID-19 could automatically qualify to vote by mail because of a “disability.” The Court held that lack of immunity alone did not qualify under the Election Code. Guzman’s concurrence, joined by Busby, emphasized that the statute’s wording still allowed voters to consider their individual health and circumstances when deciding whether voting in person was likely to harm them. The concurrence also stressed that the Court’s job was to carefully interpret the Legislature’s enacted rules rather than change them.