The New Texas Summary Judgment Rules Are Here: What Every Litigator Needs to Know About SB 293, HB 16, and the Complete Rewrite of Rule 166a
If you handle any kind of civil litigation in Texas, you need to stop what you’re doing and read this.
Texas is in the middle of the most sweeping overhaul of summary judgment practice in the state’s history. Three interrelated reforms—Senate Bill 293, House Bill 16, and a complete rewrite of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a—are fundamentally changing how motions for summary judgment are filed, briefed, heard, and decided in every district court, statutory county court, and business court in the state.
These are not modest tweaks. The Texas Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that “Rule 166a has been completely rewritten.” Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Amendments to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a, Misc. Docket No. 25-9106, at 1 (Tex. Dec. 30, 2025).
This post walks through every significant change—what the new law says, how the new rule works, and what it means for your practice—with full citations to authority so you can verify everything yourself. If you’re a Texas trial lawyer, appellate lawyer, or in-house counsel managing Texas litigation, this is required reading.
I. The Big Picture: Three Reforms, One New Framework
The new summary judgment framework rests on three pillars, each with a different effective date:
Reform
Effective Date
What It Does
SB 293
Sept. 1, 2025
Adds Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303. Imposes mandatory deadlines on courts to hear (45 days) and rule on (90 days) MSJs. Creates quarterly OCA reporting and annual public compliance reports.
HB 16
Dec. 4, 2025
Amends Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303. Adds 60-day hearing-setting deadline triggered from motion filing date. Addresses withdrawn motions.
New Rule 166a
March 1, 2026
Complete rewrite of Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a. New 21-day response / 7-day reply timeline. Mandatory motion titling. Formalized continuance procedure. Combined motions authorized.
Understanding each piece in isolation is not enough. You have to understand how they interact, because the statutory deadlines in the Government Code constrain and drive the procedural deadlines in the rule. Let’s break them down.
II. SB 293: The Legislature Puts Courts on the Clock
For decades, Texas had no statutory or rule-based deadline requiring courts to hear or rule on motions for summary judgment. Motions could sit on a judge’s desk for months—sometimes years—with no mechanism for accountability. SB 293 ended that.
Effective September 1, 2025, SB 293 added Section 23.303 to Subchapter D, Chapter 23 of the Texas Government Code. Act of June 2, 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., S.B. 293, § 29 (codified at Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303). The statute imposes two hard deadlines on every district court, statutory county court, and business court in the state:
The 45-Day Hearing Deadline
The court must hear oral argument on a motion for summary judgment, or consider the motion without oral argument, not later than the 45th day after the date the response to the motion is filed. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303(a).
Note carefully: under SB 293 standing alone, this clock starts when the response is filed, not when the motion is filed. HB 16 later added an additional motion-filing-triggered deadline (discussed below).
The 90-Day Ruling Deadline
The court must file a written ruling with the clerk and provide the ruling to the parties not later than the 90th day after the date the motion was heard or considered. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303(b).
This means the entire judicial portion of the process—from hearing through ruling—now has an outer boundary of 90 days. That alone is a seismic change.
Docket Entry Requirement
If the court considers the motion without oral argument, it must record in the docket the date the motion was considered. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303(c). This is not a minor bookkeeping detail. Without this docket entry, there is no objective starting point for the 90-day ruling clock. It ensures that the compliance timeline is ascertainable by the parties, the clerk, and the Office of Court Administration.
Public Accountability: Quarterly and Annual Reporting
SB 293 created a reporting framework modeled on the federal Civil Justice Reform Act. The clerk of each affected court must report compliance data to the Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) not less than once per quarter. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303(d). OCA must then compile and publish an annual report by December 31 of each year, identifying court-by-court compliance for the prior fiscal year. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303(e). That report goes to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House, and is made publicly available.
The statute does not impose direct sanctions for noncompliance. But let’s be frank: a judge whose court is publicly identified as failing to comply with mandatory MSJ deadlines—in a report distributed to the most powerful figures in Texas government—faces significant reputational and political accountability. This reporting mechanism has teeth, even if it doesn’t have fines.
One More Thing: The Legislature Locked the Deadlines
Here is a critical detail that practitioners must understand: the deadlines in Section 23.303 are statutory. They are set by the Legislature, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority under Section 22.004 of the Government Code extends to adopting procedural rules to implement the statute—but not to alter the deadlines themselves. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.004; cf. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303. This means that even if the Supreme Court wanted to relax the 45-day or 90-day windows, it could not do so through rulemaking. Only the Legislature can change them.
III. HB 16: Tightening the Screws Further
Three months after SB 293 took effect, the Legislature passed House Bill 16 during the 89th Legislature’s Second Called Session. HB 16’s summary judgment provisions apply to all motions for summary judgment filed on or after December 4, 2025. Act of Sept. 17, 2025, 89th Leg., 2d C.S., H.B. 16, § 1.16 (amending Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303).
HB 16 supplements—but does not replace—SB 293. It adds a new layer of deadlines triggered by the motion filing date itself, rather than the response filing date:
• 60-Day Hearing-Setting Deadline. The court must set the motion for hearing or written submission within 60 days of the motion’s filing date. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303 (as amended by H.B. 16).
• 90-Day Extension. The hearing may be set within 90 days if (a) the court’s docket requires it on a showing of good cause, or (b) the movant consents.
• Withdrawn-Motion Clock Pause. If a motion is withdrawn and later refiled, the statutory timeline pauses and resets upon refiling. This prevents gamesmanship.
The December 4 Transition: Why It Matters
The December 4, 2025 effective date creates a two-tier framework that practitioners navigating pending cases must understand:
Motions Filed Sept. 1 – Dec. 3, 2025
Motions Filed Dec. 4, 2025 or Later
Governed by SB 293 only. Hearing/consideration deadline: 45 days after response filed. Ruling deadline: 90 days after hearing.
Governed by SB 293 + HB 16. Additional requirement: court must set hearing within 60 days of motion filing (90 with good cause). Withdrawn motions pause the clock.
If you have motions pending that were filed between September 1 and December 3, 2025, the HB 16 requirements do not apply to those motions. But for anything filed on December 4 or later—which, as of this writing, includes every new MSJ—both statutes apply.
IV. The New Rule 166a: A Ground-Up Rewrite
On December 30, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued Misc. Docket No. 25-9106, granting preliminary approval to a completely rewritten Rule 166a. Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Amendments to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a, Misc. Docket No. 25-9106 (Tex. Dec. 30, 2025). The new rule is set to take effect March 1, 2026, and public comments are being accepted through February 28, 2026, at rulescomments@txcourts.gov.
The old Rule 166a—with its lettered subdivisions (a) through (i)—is gone. In its place is a modernized, clearly organized rule with labeled sections. Here is what practitioners need to know about each major change.
A. Mandatory Motion Titling
Every motion for summary judgment must now carry one of three mandatory titles:
• “Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment”
• “No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment”
• “Combined Motion for Summary Judgment”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026).
A word of comfort: an absent or incorrect title is not grounds for denying the motion. The titling requirement is designed to improve judicial workflow and reduce confusion—not to create a procedural trap. That said, there is no reason to get it wrong. Title your motions correctly from day one.
B. Combined Motions Are Now Expressly Authorized
Under the old regime, practitioners routinely filed motions arguing both traditional and no-evidence grounds, but the rule never expressly addressed the practice. The new Rule 166a fixes that. It defines “traditional” and “no-evidence” summary judgments, specifies what is required when the two are combined, and establishes the “Combined Motion for Summary Judgment” as a recognized category. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026).
This eliminates the ambiguity that previously existed about whether combined motions were proper and what standards applied to each component.
C. The Briefing Timeline Has Fundamentally Changed
PRACTITIONERS: READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY.
The new briefing timeline is the single most impactful change to day-to-day practice. If you internalize only one section of this post, make it this one.
Under the old Rule 166a, deadlines were anchored to the hearing date. You knew when the hearing was, and you worked backward: the motion had to be filed and served at least 21 days before the hearing; the response was due at least 7 days before the hearing; and the reply (if one was filed at all) was customarily filed 3 days before the hearing, though the rule did not prescribe a reply deadline. Former Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).
Under the new Rule 166a, deadlines are anchored to the motion filing date.
Summary Judgment Briefing Timeline (Texas Rule 166a)
Old Rule 166a (Pre–March 1, 2026)
Deadlines tied to the hearing date
Step 1 — Hearing Set
The court sets a hearing date (no minimum waiting period).
Step 2 — Motion Filed
The motion for summary judgment must be filed and served at least 21 days before the hearing.
Step 3 — Response Due
The non-movant’s response is due 7 days before the hearing.
Step 4 — Reply (Optional)
No rule-prescribed deadline. Replies were commonly filed about 3 days before the hearing, but this was practice-based, not mandatory.
Step 5 — Ruling
No deadline for the court to rule.
New Rule 166a (Effective March 1, 2026)
Deadlines tied to the motion filing date
Day 0 — Motion Filed
The clock starts running the moment the motion is filed — even if no hearing is set.
Day 21 — Response Due
The non-movant’s response is due 21 days after the motion is filed.
Day 28 — Reply Due
The movant’s reply is due 7 days after the response is filed.
Day 35 (Earliest) — Hearing
The hearing may not be held earlier than 35 days after the motion is filed.
Within 90 Days — Ruling Required
The court must rule within 90 days after the hearing or submission.
Why this matters:
Under the old rule, parties worked backward from a known hearing date.
Under the new rule, the response deadline begins immediately upon filing — whether a hearing has been set or not. This requires significantly earlier preparation by non-movants.
Compare former Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), with Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026); see also Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303.
The practical impact of this shift cannot be overstated. Under the old rule, a respondent knew the hearing date from the start and had a predictable window to prepare. Under the new rule, the 21-day response clock starts running the moment the motion is filed, regardless of when—or whether—a hearing has been set.
As one commentator put it, this is “a huge change from the old rule” that will “require non-movants to be far more proactive in getting their responses done and ready than they were before.”
D. The Reply Is Now Formalized—and Restricted
The movant may file a reply within 7 days after the response is filed, except on leave of court. But here is the critical restriction: a reply must not raise new or independent summary judgment grounds, other than to address an amended pleading. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026).
This codifies what was an unsettled area of practice. Under the old rule, there was genuine disagreement about whether a movant could raise new issues in a reply. The new rule answers the question definitively: no, except to address amended pleadings. Sandbagging in the reply is now expressly prohibited.
E. Oral Argument Requests Must Appear on the Cover
If the nonmovant wants oral argument, the request must appear on the cover of the response. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026).
This is a small but easily missed detail. Burying an oral-argument request in the body of the response will not suffice under the new rule. Train yourself—and your associates—to put it on the cover page.
F. Modernized Continuance Provisions
What happens if you can’t present the facts you need to oppose the motion? The old rule allowed the court to “refuse the application for judgment or… order a continuance.” Former Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g). The new rule gives courts broader discretion. If the nonmovant files an affidavit or declaration specifying why it cannot present essential facts, the court may:
• Extend the time to file the response;
• Deny the motion without prejudice to permit additional discovery; or
• Issue any other appropriate order.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026).
The “any other appropriate order” language is new and gives judges maximum flexibility to fashion tailored relief. But the affidavit requirement ensures that continuance requests are substantiated, not reflexive.
G. Affidavit Standards and Bad Faith Sanctions
The evidentiary standards for supporting and opposing affidavits remain substantively the same: personal knowledge, admissible facts, competency of the affiant, and sworn or certified attachments. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026).
The bad faith affidavit provision, however, has shifted from mandatory to permissive language. The old rule said the court “shall forthwith order” the offending party to pay expenses and could adjudge contempt. Former Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(h). The new rule says the court “may” order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, after notice and a reasonable time to respond. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026). The contempt provision has been removed entirely.
H. New Withdrawal Provisions
The new rule adds an express provision for withdrawing motions: any withdrawal must be filed and must identify the motion being withdrawn. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026). This interacts with HB 16’s clock-pausing provision—a withdrawn motion pauses the statutory deadline, and the clock resets upon refiling. Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303 (as amended by H.B. 16).
I. Use of Discovery Evidence Not on File
The new rule consolidates the provisions on unfiled discovery materials. Discovery not on file may be used as summary judgment evidence if copies, appendices, or a notice with specific references to the discovery are filed with a statement of intent to use the specified discovery. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026). This is a clarification rather than a substantive change, but it brings welcome consistency to what was previously a source of procedural confusion.
V. The Complete Timeline: Life of an MSJ After March 1, 2026
Day 0 — Motion Filed
The motion for summary judgment is filed.
It must be properly titled and compliant with Rule 166a.
This filing triggers all subsequent deadlines.
Day 21 — Response Due
The non-movant’s response is due.
The response must include:
All summary-judgment evidence
Any objections to evidence
Any request for oral argument (on the cover page, if desired)
Day 28 — Reply Due
The movant’s reply is due.
No new grounds for summary judgment may be asserted.
Day 35 — Earliest Possible Hearing Date
No hearing may be set before Day 35.
Day 60 — Hearing Must Be Set
The court must set a hearing by Day 60.
This deadline may be extended up to Day 90 only for good cause or with the movant’s consent.
Day 66 — SB 293 Hearing Deadline
This represents the statutory outer deadline for holding the hearing:
45 days after the Day 21 response deadline.
No Later Than Day 156 — Ruling Deadline
The court must issue a written ruling within 90 days after the hearing or submission, creating an outside limit of approximately 156 days from filing.
⚖️ Why This Matters
Under the old regime, there was no outer limit on when a court had to rule. Summary-judgment motions could sit unresolved indefinitely.
Under the new framework, the entire lifecycle — from filing through ruling — is compressed into roughly five months at the outside, imposing real discipline on both litigants and courts.
VI. What This Means for Your Practice: Concrete Steps to Take Now
If You’re Filing Summary Judgment Motions
1. File complete motions. With courts on the clock from the filing date, there is less tolerance for placeholder filings that get supplemented later. Your motion should be ready to be ruled on at the time you file it.
2. Break complex dispositive motions into focused filings. If you have multiple independent grounds for summary judgment, consider filing separate motions addressing discrete issues. This makes it easier for the court to meet its deadlines and can improve your odds of getting a ruling on at least some of your grounds.
3. Submit a proposed order. Judges under deadline pressure will appreciate a well-drafted proposed order that accurately states the grounds for judgment. Make their job easier.
4. Title your motions correctly. While the rule says an incorrect title won’t result in denial, why invite confusion? Use the required title from day one.
If You’re Opposing Summary Judgment Motions
1. Monitor filings aggressively. The 21-day response clock starts from the filing date, not from a hearing date. You cannot afford to learn about a motion a week after it was filed. Set up e-filing notifications. Check your service emails daily.
2. Pre-assemble your response materials. In cases where a summary judgment motion is anticipated, start gathering affidavits, discovery excerpts, and response arguments now—before the motion is filed.
3. Put your oral-argument request on the cover page. This is a new requirement under the rewritten Rule 166a. If you want oral argument, say so on the cover. Don’t bury it in the body of the brief.
4. Use the continuance provision if you need it. If you cannot present essential facts, file the required affidavit or declaration promptly explaining why. The court can extend your response deadline, deny the motion without prejudice, or fashion other appropriate relief. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026).
5. Seek leave early if you need more time. Don’t wait until the 21-day deadline passes to ask for an extension. Seek leave proactively.
VII. Open Questions and What to Watch
These reforms are transformative, but they also raise significant questions that will take time to resolve:
Will Courts Become More or Less Inclined to Grant Summary Judgment?
Some practitioners worry that courts under deadline pressure will deny motions to “clear the deck” rather than investing the time to write a detailed ruling. Others believe the opposite—that the structure and accountability will encourage more thoughtful, timely dispositions. The honest answer is that we don’t know yet. Watch the first year of compliance data closely.
Will Oral Argument Decline?
With compressed deadlines, there is a real possibility that some courts will prefer deciding motions on written submission rather than scheduling oral arguments. This could limit opportunities for advocates to address factual nuances that do not translate well to paper.
What About High-Volume Dockets?
Courts that handle large numbers of summary judgment motions—particularly in personal injury, labor and employment, insurance defense, and creditors’ rights—will be under the most pressure. Docket backlogs in these courts could lead to creative interpretations of the “good cause” exception under HB 16. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303 (as amended by H.B. 16).
The Comment Period Is Still Open
As of the date of this post, the rewritten Rule 166a is in preliminary approval status. Public comments are due by February 28, 2026, and should be emailed to rulescomments@txcourts.gov. Depending on the feedback, the final rule could differ from the version currently proposed. Practitioners should read the full text of Misc. Docket No. 25-9106 and seriously consider submitting comments. The full order is available on the Texas Supreme Court’s website.
VIII. The Bottom Line
The message from the Legislature and the Supreme Court is unmistakable: the era of indefinite delays in summary judgment practice is over. Courts are now on the clock. Lawyers are on shorter leashes. And the public will be watching through annual compliance reports.
Whether you file summary judgment motions, oppose them, or both, you need to adjust your practice now—not when the new Rule 166a takes effect on March 1. The statutory deadlines under SB 293 and HB 16 are already in force. The compressed briefing timeline is less than three weeks away.
If your firm has not updated its docketing systems, response protocols, and litigation playbooks to account for these changes, the time to do so is not next month. It is today.
Table of Authorities
The following authorities are cited in this post. All citations conform to the Texas Rules of Form (Greenbook, 16th ed.).
Statutes
Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.004
Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303 (West Supp.)
Session Laws
Act of June 2, 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., S.B. 293, § 29 (codified at Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303)
Act of Sept. 17, 2025, 89th Leg., 2d C.S., H.B. 16, § 1.16 (amending Tex. Gov’t Code § 23.303)
Rules
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (effective Mar. 1, 2026)
Former Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (repealed effective Mar. 1, 2026)
Former Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g) (repealed effective Mar. 1, 2026)
Former Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(h) (repealed effective Mar. 1, 2026)
Court Orders
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Amendments to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a, Misc. Docket No. 25-9106 (Tex. Dec. 30, 2025)