I wrote about the motion to dismiss submitted regarding Kate Rogers, the former Executive Director of the Alamo Trust here. The motions by the three Defendants struck me as rather weak. The Western District of Texas and Judge Rodriguez appear to agree. The court’s decision ignores the allegation that Ms. Rogers published “highly critical” comments about the Texas Legislature. Instead, the court rightly noted that her dissertation was not speech pursuant to her duties. Her remarks in her paper were those of a private citizen. Ms. Rogers started working on her Ph.d before she was hired by the Alamo Trust. Neither the Alamo Trust nor any other entity helped her pay for her studies. As the court noted, public employees regularly write and publish dissertations, theses and scholarship. The simple fact of their employment does not convert those papers into public speech performed as part of their duties.
Control Over Employment
The court made short work of Lt-Gov. Dan Patrick’s and Land Office Commissioner Dawn Buckingham’s arguments that they had no control over Rogers’ employment. They both made public statements on Twitter/X that certainly indicated they had control. And, they both made public comments in the news media indicating they had some control.
The court also dismissed their arguments that Ms. Rogers was not fired. The court noted, as everyone in the world knows, that an ultimatum to quit or be fired amounts to a termination. It might have been different if Mr. Patrick and Ms. Buckingham had simply commented publicly that they disagreed with Roger’s comments. But, they went beyond that and used their power and influence to remove her from her job.
The court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss regarding most of Ms. Rogers’ claims. A motion to dismiss does not address the merits of the case. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss simply asks if the plaintiff’s claims hold enough water to justify going forward. The court found most of Ms. Roger’s Complaint does indeed hold enough water to proceed further with her lawsuit. Rogers v. Alamo Trust, Inc. Et Al, No. SA-25-CV-1500 (W.D. tex. Aug. 25, 2026)