By: Wallace Dunwoody and Michele Himstedt
Effective March 1, 2026, Texas implemented a comprehensive rewrite of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a. The revisions materially alter how motions for summary judgment are filed, briefed, set, and ruled upon. The most significant changes are outlined below.
The Response Deadline Is Now Triggered by the Filing of the Motion, Not the Hearing Date
For most practitioners, this will likely be the most consequential day-to-day change. Under the prior Rule 166a, deadlines were anchored to the hearing date—the motion was due 21 days before the hearing, and the response was due 7 days before. Under the new rule, deadlines are anchored to the motion’s filing date. The nonmovant’s response is due 21 days after the motion is filed, and the movant may file a reply within 7 days after the response.
The response deadline begins running upon filing—whether or not a hearing has been set. As a result, the movant no longer controls the response deadline by selecting a hearing date. Nonmovants must monitor filings closely, as the response deadline runs regardless of when—or whether—a hearing is scheduled.
Courts Are Now on the Clock
For the first time, the rule imposes express deadlines on courts. A hearing or submission date cannot be set within 35 days of the motion’s filing, but the court must set the motion for hearing or written submission within 60 days (or 90 days for good cause). After the hearing or submission, the court must sign a written ruling within 90 days. Under the prior rule, no express deadline required the court to rule within a specified time.
These requirements operate alongside new statutory provisions enacted in 2025 (SB 293 and HB 16), which require court clerks to report compliance quarterly to the Office of Court Administration. That data feeds an annual public report to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and speaker of the house, creating public accountability for compliance.
New Structural Requirements
The revised rule introduces several procedural changes.
Motions must now carry a mandatory title: “Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment,” “No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment,” or “Combined Motion for Summary Judgment.” An incorrect title is not grounds for denial, but the motion will be returned for correction, which may affect timing.
Combined motions—long common in practice but not previously addressed expressly in the rule—are now formally recognized.
Both the movant and the nonmovant must submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date, rather than presenting them at the hearing.
Requests for oral argument must appear on the cover of the motion or response—not within the body of the brief.
The movant’s reply is formally limited: it must not raise new or independent summary judgment grounds. This codifies existing case law prohibiting new grounds in a reply and reinforces that all independent bases for summary judgment must appear in the original motion.
To assist with reporting requirements, any withdrawal of a motion must now be formally filed and must identify the date of the original motion.
What Practitioners Should Do Now
Nonmovants should monitor filings closely and begin preparing a response immediately upon the filing of a motion, regardless of whether a hearing has been set.
Movants should ensure that their motions are complete and ready to be ruled on at the time of filing. Because judicial ruling deadlines now apply, courts may be less inclined to permit informal supplementation after filing.
Both sides must submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date.
Practitioners should also review local rules and standing orders to confirm alignment with the revised statewide requirements. Early cases applying the new rule will likely clarify issues such as continuances, evidentiary objections, and enforcement of judicial deadlines.
In practical terms, the revised rule reduces the likelihood that summary judgment motions will remain pending without disposition for extended periods.
