BOCA CHICA, TEXAS — The Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday, June 19, 2026, that environmental groups lack the legal standing to sue over beach closures implemented for SpaceX rocket launches at Boca Chica. The court determined that the 2009 constitutional amendment regarding beach access does not grant a private right to sue for enforcement.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 by the environmental group SaveRGV against the Texas General Land Office, Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, and Cameron County. The Sierra Club and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas later joined the legal action. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate a 2013 state law that authorizes SpaceX to close Boca Chica Beach during rocket launches. The Texas attorney general's office intervened in the case to defend the 2013 law.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Rebeca Huddle authored the court's unanimous opinion. Huddle stated, "The plaintiffs are private parties — organizations whose beachgoing members claim the temporary closures of Boca Chica Beach conflict with their constitutional right to access and use the beach." The court concluded the 2009 constitutional amendment expressly states there is no private right to sue to enforce beach access. Huddle said, "The trial court was thus correct to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction."

The trial judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, which prevented the plaintiffs from refiling it with changes. SaveRGV had argued that closing Boca Chica Beach and State Highway 4 for SpaceX launches violated the Texas Constitution, which was amended in 2009 to guarantee public access to state beaches. The 2009 constitutional amendment received support from 77 percent of Texans. The Texas Supreme Court did not issue a decision on whether the Texas Constitution overrides laws that limit beach access.

The court's ruling noted that the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas complained that SpaceX beach closures interfered with members' ability to practice their religion. Huddle clarified that the holding should not be interpreted to prevent the Tribe, or private parties generally, from seeking relief for injuries suffered due to HB 2623. She said, "Today's holding should not be construed to prohibit the Tribe — or private parties generally — from seeking relief for such injuries they suffer due to HB 2623. We hold only that [the open beaches amendment of the constitution] cannot serve as the basis for that relief." The court indicated that this religious freedom complaint may be raised in a separate lawsuit.