With HERO Prop S Approved, Will People Start Suing the City of Dallas? (2025)

It has been nearly two weeks since two of the so-called “Dallas HERO amendments” scored a majority vote in the general election, but so far, there are no lawsuits in sight.

For the uninitiated, Proposition S was one of the three HERO amendments on the November ballot. With nearly 359,000 voters weighing in, it passed with 55% of the vote. The initiative will make it easier for residents to sue the city to compel it to comply with city or state law.

Despite how this might entice public perception, it would not be a simple payday for residents who would just as soon fake a slip-and-fall injury to bolster their finances. For the plaintiff’s part, the proposition limits options to injunctive relief (where the court orders a party to do or not do something) and declaratory relief (where the court declares a specific finding of law or a party’s rights for future proceedings to be bound to.)

In other words, this will not give residents any direct incentive to catch the city in an illegal act just so they, in the words of the President-elect, “can sue them and win lots of money.”

Proposition S specifically adds provisions to the Dallas city charter, including the provision that residents can sue to compel the city to comply with municipal or state law, but they must give at least 60-days’ notice in writing wherein they articulate the legal violation with sufficient particularity so that the city has ample time to comply.

If the injunctive and/or declaratory relief is granted, the city can be ordered to pay costs and attorney’s fees to make the litigant resident whole. Residents will have standing to sue the city. The city of Dallas will no longer have sovereign immunity for the purposes of these claims.

This and its sister amendments had been the subject of intense electoral advertising, much of which had a considerably partisan undercurrent (including one adverse YouTube ad calling them “MAGA propositions”). Likewise, much of the city staff and other public officials had spoken out against the proposition, including Mayor Eric Johnson, his predecessor Mike Rawlings and other former mayors, and Dallas city council members such as Adam Bazaldua and Chad West.

Opponents of Proposition S have argued that it would open the floodgates for litigation that the city would have to defend with taxpayer funds and it would make the city so cautious as to stifle its ability to effectively govern. (This is a common argument in favor of just about any type of government/state actor immunity, and it’s been incredibly persuasive to the courts.)

Meanwhile, proponents argue that this law will ensure accountability from the city. Among the highest-profile of these is Monty Bennett, a Dallas-based hotel magnate who donated to the namesake 501(c)4 that petitioned to place the amendments on the ballot. He has been rather vocal about the cause behind Propostion S.

“All residents and organizations such as businesses and nonprofits in Dallas have to follow the law and they're not so afraid of fines or jail time that they can't function,” Bennett says in an email to the Observer. “Why would it be any different for the city?”

Standing on the Shoulders of Standing

In order for an individual litigant to successfully file a lawsuit, they need what is called “standing,” a legal term for the right to sue or otherwise bring proceedings before a court. Cities have long had a reliable defense against many resident litigants, but now that ace-in-the-hole defense is gone. So, too, is the other surefire defense used by municipalities: sovereign immunity.

States, for example, have sovereign immunity from lawsuits under the U.S. Constitution’s Eleventh Amendment, and the Texas Supreme Court has recognized that this immunity extends to cities. This means that the government cannot be sued for any official act unless the government says so, and now the city says so – thanks to Prop S.

Drought or Flood?

So with these two defenses now unavailable, what will the future hold?

It depends on who you ask. As Bennett and other proponents tell it, this will usher in a new era of government accountability. The city staffers paint a much bleaker picture, arguing that despite the worthwhile pursuit of ensuring government accountability, Proposition S will actually weaken the city’s ability to govern.

Art Martinez de Vara is a Houston-based attorney, historian and former mayor of Von Ormy in Bexar County. He serves as Dallas HERO’s legal counsel and, in that capacity, drafted the language of the amendments.

“I believe the effect will be that compliance with the law will become a leading concern for all governmental actions,” Martinez de Vara opines, with consideration for his mayoral experience. “That will be a positive reform to municipal government and a benefit to all.”

City staffers would certainly not describe Proposition S as a “positive reform” or a “benefit to all.”

"We're very precise on all the rules and regulations at the city, so any little “i” that's not dotted, we're going to have a plethora – a flood – of legal issues at the city. The lawyers are going to go crazy being able to sue the city," said former Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings in an interview with Fox 4. “For some reason, these people want Dallas to be the only city in the nation to give away immunity. So neighbors can sue the city if they get in an argument; get in an argument about an ambulance not coming in time."

One of Rawlings’ predecessors, Tom Leppert, said at a Dallas HERO town hall, “The unintended consequences could be disastrous for our city,” D Magazine reported.

Bennett dismisses these concerns, calling them “misinformation.”

“Why is the city so scared of simply following the law?” he asks.

A spokesperson for the City of Dallas has not yet returned comment asking for a response to the Proposition S proponents or whether the city has already received any 60-day notices.

Brian L. Owsley is an associate professor at the UNT Dallas College of Law and a former federal magistrate judge (full disclosure: this writer is a student at the law school, and Owsley is one of his professors). When asked about what the aftermath would look like, he says, “[Proposition S] at least has some potential to wreak havoc.”

But conversely, the city could prevail in court notwithstanding the proposition, he adds.

“I don’t know now what the likelihood of how successful [the lawsuits would be],” explains Owsley. “I expect the city will challenge whether or not it is a valid exercise, whether it does actually waive sovereign immunity or create standing.

“As opposed to addressing the merits of the claim, that would be my first opening salvo if I were representing the city.”