Texas Business Court in 2026: A Practical Guide to Jurisdiction, Procedure, and Strategy for $5 Million+ Business Disputes
Texas has fundamentally upgraded its state-court forum for high-stakes commercial litigation. The Texas Business Court is now a mature, statewide (but division-based) trial-court system designed to handle complex business disputes with specialized judges, tighter case management, and a more predictable path to appellate review than many general civil dockets. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.001 et seq.; TEX. R. CIV. P. 352–359.
The most consequential 2025 statutory change—often the “headline” for litigants—is that key jurisdictional thresholds now sit at $5 million (rather than $10 million for certain categories), which expands access to the Business Court for a much broader set of commercial disputes. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.001(14).
What follows is a full, practice-forward explanation of what the Texas Business Court is, where it operates, what cases qualify, how cases get in, what procedure looks like once you’re there, and what sophisticated litigants should consider when selecting (or resisting) the forum. (This is general information, not legal advice.)
1. What the Texas Business Court is (and why it matters)
The Texas Business Court is a specialized civil trial court with jurisdiction defined by statute and implemented through dedicated procedural rules. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004; TEX. R. CIV. P. 352.
The point is not merely “faster.” The structural benefits for complex commercial disputes typically include:
Judicial specialization: Business Court judges focus on sophisticated business disputes rather than rotating between unrelated dockets. (See generally the court’s organizational materials and judge roster.)
Rules built for forum gatekeeping: The rules require early pleading and early challenges regarding whether the case belongs in the Business Court. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(a), (c)(2).
An appeal channel designed for Business Court cases: Appeals from Business Court orders and judgments run to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals (with limited exceptions for Supreme Court jurisdiction). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.007(a).
In short: the Business Court is built to produce focused trial-court management and coherent appellate development for major business disputes—provided your case fits the statutory box.
2. Where the Business Court operates in 2026: divisions and counties
The division structure
The Business Court is organized into divisions tied to Texas’s administrative judicial regions (and related statutory geography). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.003.
Not every division is necessarily “operating” at all times—operations depend on legislative funding and implementation. (This is one reason venue and “operating division” analysis is always step one.)
The operating footprint (counties served)
As reflected in the Texas Judiciary’s Business Court materials, operating coverage in 2026 includes the First, Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Divisions, serving the following counties:
1st Division: Collin, Dallas, Ellis, Fannin, Grayson, Kaufman, Rockwall.
3rd Division: Austin, Bastrop, Bell, Blanco, Bosque, Burnet, Caldwell, Colorado, Comal, Comanche, Coryell, Falls, Fayette, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hamilton, Hays, Hill, Lampasas, Lavaca, Llano, McLennan, Milam, Navarro, Robertson, San Saba, Travis, Williamson.
4th Division: Aransas, Atascosa, Bee, Bexar, Calhoun, De Witt, Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Jackson, Karnes, La Salle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Refugio, San Patricio, Victoria, Webb, Wilson, Zapata, Zavala.
8th Division: Archer, Clay, Cooke, Denton, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Jack, Johnson, Montague, Palo Pinto, Parker, Somervell, Stephens, Tarrant, Wichita, Wise, Young.
11th Division: Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Matagorda, Montgomery, Wharton.
Where proceedings happen (courtrooms, chambers, and practical logistics)
Business Court judges maintain chambers in specified locations within their division and can hold court within the division’s geographic boundaries as needed or convenient for the particular action. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.017(c)–(d).
This matters tactically: even if the court is “specialized,” you still have to plan for venue, hearing locations, and trial logistics like any other Texas civil case—except with the additional overlay that you must be in (or be transferred to) an operating division. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(d)(1).
3. The jurisdiction “gate”: what qualifies for Business Court (and what does not)
A. The Business Court’s powers mirror district court powers (within its jurisdiction)
Once a case is properly in the Business Court, it generally has district-court-like tools available, including injunctive relief and other writ power as specified by statute. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(a).
B. The core $5 million categories: internal business “control” and governance disputes
For several key categories, Business Court jurisdiction exists when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million (excluding interest, statutory damages, exemplary damages, penalties, attorney’s fees, and court costs). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b).
Those categories include (in plain English):
Derivative proceedings (e.g., shareholder/member derivative litigation). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b)(1).
Governance and internal affairs disputes (fiduciary duties, governance fights, governing documents, internal control). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b)(2), (5).
Securities / trade-regulation claims asserted against the entity and key actors (including officers, controlling persons, underwriters, auditors, depending on the claim). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b)(3).
Claims by the organization or an owner against owners/controlling persons/management for conduct in that capacity. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b)(4).
Certain “owner/governing person liability” (veil-piercing style) theories, subject to the statute’s carveouts. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b)(6).
Actions arising out of the Texas Business Organizations Code (a broad statutory hook that often overlaps with governance and fiduciary disputes). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b)(7).
Practice tip: These categories are where “business divorce” litigation often lives—control disputes, fiduciary-duty claims, derivative theories, and governing-document battles—if the amount in controversy is met and no exclusion applies. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b), (g)–(h).
C. The expanded $5 million categories: “external” commercial disputes (contracts, transactions, IP, trade secrets)
A separate jurisdiction track covers major commercial disputes—also pegged to $5 million in controversy—including:
Actions arising out of a “qualified transaction.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(1).
Business/commercial/investment contracts where the parties agreed the Business Court has jurisdiction (i.e., an agreed Business Court forum-selection concept), but insurance contracts are explicitly excluded. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(2).
Certain Finance Code / Business & Commerce Code violation actions against organizations and their controlling/governing persons (with statutory limitations). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(3), (g).
Intellectual property disputes (broadly described to include software, IT systems, data/security, pharma/biotech, and trade secrets as defined by statute). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(4).
Trade secret claims under TUTSA (Chapter 134A, Civil Practice & Remedies Code). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(5).
D. What changed under HB 40: the “$10 million → $5 million” shift and broader transaction/IP coverage
HB 40 is the reason litigants now see $5 million as the central threshold for categories that previously sat at $10 million (especially for qualified transactions and certain agreed-jurisdiction contract disputes). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.001(14).
HB 40 also revised the definition of “qualified transaction” to include a transaction or a series of related transactions meeting the aggregate-value requirement, and it set that aggregate value at at least $5 million (subject to statutory exclusions such as certain bank/credit lending transactions). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.001(14).
E. Arbitration-related court actions: enforcing arbitration agreements and awards
Texas also built an arbitration “on-ramp” into Business Court jurisdiction: the Business Court can hear actions to enforce arbitration agreements, appoint arbitrators, and review awards if the underlying arbitration controversy includes a claim that would qualify under the Business Court’s core jurisdiction categories. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d-1).
F. Amount in controversy: what counts (and what the statute excludes)
The statute is explicit that, for the $5 million thresholds, the “amount in controversy” excludes interest, statutory damages, exemplary damages, penalties, attorney’s fees, and court costs. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b), (d).
And HB 40 added an aggregation rule: for jurisdictional purposes, the amount in controversy is the total amount of all joined parties’ claims. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(i).
That aggregation point is strategically significant in multi-party disputes (for example, multiple claimants aligned against a common defendant), because it affects whether you can clear the $5 million threshold without relying on a single claimant’s damages model. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(i).
G. The carve-outs: cases the Business Court generally cannot hear
Even if a dispute “feels” commercial, the statute draws firm lines.
Not within jurisdiction (unless supplemental jurisdiction applies):
The Business Court does not have jurisdiction over certain claims, including claims brought by or against a governmental entity and certain lien-foreclosure matters involving property owned by an individual at filing, among other statutory carve-outs. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(g).
It also excludes several subject-matter buckets (by statutory cross-reference), including claims arising out of specific portions of the Business & Commerce Code, Estates Code, Family Code, Insurance Code, and Property Code provisions. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(g)(2).
Additionally, claims related to the duties and obligations under an insurance policy are carved out in the statute’s jurisdiction limitations. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(g)(4).
Excluded even if “supplemental jurisdiction” would otherwise apply:
Certain claim types are excluded regardless of supplemental jurisdiction—most notably healthcare liability claims, bodily injury/death damages claims, legal malpractice claims, and specified consumer-transaction claims. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(h).
This matters because you can end up with parallel proceedings (Business Court for the qualifying claims; another trial court for excluded claims) unless the statutory and procedural mechanisms allow consolidation. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(f), (h).
H. Supplemental jurisdiction exists—but it’s not automatic
Texas did not give the Business Court “federal-style” supplemental jurisdiction that automatically sweeps in everything related. Instead, supplemental jurisdiction exists only with an agreement requirement.
The Business Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related claims forming part of the same case or controversy, but those claims may proceed in the Business Court only on the agreement of all parties to the claim and a Business Court judge. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(f).
The Local Rules also build a timing mechanism around that agreement concept, including how and when parties object to supplemental jurisdiction. BCLR 2(d) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
4. How cases get into the Business Court
There are three principal entry routes, plus a newer statutory mechanism for certain older cases.
Route 1: File directly in the Business Court
If your dispute fits Chapter 25A, you may file the action in the Business Court, but you must plead facts to establish (1) Business Court authority and (2) venue in a county in a division (and practically, an operating division). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.006(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(a).
The rules require that the pleading asserting a claim for relief (petition, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party claim) plead facts establishing authority, and the original petition must also plead venue in an operating division county. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(a).
Route 2: Remove an existing case from a district court or county court at law
A party may remove an action originally filed in a district court or county court at law to the Business Court by filing a notice of removal in both courts (the originating court and the Business Court). TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(a).
Removal practice is rule-driven and document-heavy: the notice must plead facts establishing authority and venue and must include key record documents (e.g., docket sheet, pleadings, and orders). TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(b).
The timing depends on whether removal is agreed and on when the removing party discovers facts establishing Business Court authority (with special timing rules when temporary injunction proceedings are in play). TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(c).
Route 3: Transfer (by request through the regional presiding judge process)
A trial court can request transfer of a pending action to the Business Court through the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region, with notice and a hearing if parties object. TEX. R. CIV. P. 356(a)–(c).
If the regional presiding judge denies transfer, that denial can be challenged via mandamus in the relevant court of appeals district for the requesting court’s county. TEX. R. CIV. P. 356(c).
Route 4 (HB 40): Some cases filed before September 1, 2024 can be moved in—by agreement and permission
HB 40 created a mechanism for certain pre–September 1, 2024 actions to be transferred to and heard by the Business Court on an agreed motion and with the Business Court’s permission under Supreme Court rules, with directives about prioritizing complex, long-duration cases that have been difficult for district courts to resolve due to caseload. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.021(a).
This is a major “case migration” concept for legacy disputes—particularly those that were already sprawling when the Business Court opened. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.021(a).
5. Venue and division assignment: the forum-selection overlay most litigants miss
Venue must be established in a county in a Business Court division
Whether you file directly or remove, you must establish venue in a county in a Business Court division, and the case is assigned accordingly. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.006(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(a), 355(b)(2)(B).
HB 40 clarified that venue may be established not only by law and by written contracts specifying venue, but also (for certain internal-organization dispute categories) by a party’s governing documents. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.006(a)(2)–(3).
Clerk assignment is structured—and random within multi-judge divisions
For actions originally filed, the Business Court clerk assigns the action to a division, and if the division has more than one judge, the clerk randomly assigns the action to a judge. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(b).
For removed actions, the clerk of the originating court transfers the action to the Business Court, and then the Business Court clerk assigns the case to the appropriate division (and randomly to a judge if applicable). TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(e).
What if venue or jurisdiction is wrong?
If venue is wrong for the division’s geography, the court must transfer the case to another operating division that includes a proper venue county, or (if no operating division includes a proper county) transfer to a district court or county court at law in a proper venue county—upon request. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(d)(1).
If the Business Court determines it lacks authority, it must transfer (on request) or dismiss without prejudice, with notice and a chance to be heard if the court acts on its own initiative. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(d)(2).
6. What practice looks like once you’re in: rules, local rules, and “how the court runs cases”
A. What procedural rules apply?
The Business Court runs primarily on:
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (Parts I, II, III, VI), plus the Business Court rules in Part III. TEX. R. CIV. P. 352.
The Business Court’s Local Rules (effective Jan. 15, 2026). BCLR 1 (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
Local Rules of Administration governing docket administration and internal court operations (effective Dec. 1, 2025). Local Rules of Admin. for the Tex. Bus. Ct. R. 1–3 (eff. Dec. 1, 2025).
B. Filing discipline: the clerk can strike noncompliant filings
The Local Rules expressly authorize the clerk to review filings for compliance and to strike noncompliant documents if the deficiency is not cured within a short window. BCLR 1(f) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
That single provision changes behavior: sophisticated litigants treat Business Court filing requirements as closer to federal-court practice—especially for formatting, certificates, appendices, and proposed orders. BCLR 1; BCLR 5 (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
C. Early case management: scheduling orders and disclosures are front-loaded
The Local Rules call for early scheduling, typically requiring the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order within a set timeframe after the first appearance or after removal/transfer. BCLR 4(a) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
The rules also require corporate disclosure statements and related disclosures designed to surface financial interests and governance relationships early. BCLR 3 (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
D. Discovery disputes are managed with “pre-motion” rigor and potential cost consequences
The Business Court’s Local Rules impose structured prerequisites for discovery motions (including written communications describing the dispute and efforts to resolve it), and they contemplate fee/cost consequences in appropriate circumstances. BCLR 4(d)–(e) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
In practice, this can reduce performative discovery motion practice and push parties toward real issue-narrowing—especially in cases involving electronically stored information, valuation issues, and complex contract performance disputes. BCLR 4(d)–(e) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
E. Motion practice: word limits, appendices, and proposed orders are the norm
The Business Court’s Local Rules set expectations for word limits, appendix practice, and proposed orders (and require certificates of compliance). BCLR 5 (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
If you want a written opinion (beyond the order itself), the Local Rules impose timing requirements for requesting that relief. BCLR 5(g) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026); TEX. R. CIV. P. 360(a)(1).
F. Emergency relief: the court expects advance coordination
For TROs and other emergency requests, the Local Rules require prompt notice to the clerk and structured submission practices (including proposed orders and coordination expectations). BCLR 7 (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
G. Removal/remand practice is tightly governed
The procedural rules specify what removal notices must contain, how quickly the originating court must transfer the case, and how remand works if removal was improper. TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(b), (e)–(f).
H. Court administration and time standards
The Business Court’s Local Rules of Administration add time standards beyond general judicial-administration rules, including a stated target that matters taken under advisement will be ruled on within three months of hearing/submission. Local Rules of Admin. for the Tex. Bus. Ct. R. 2 (eff. Dec. 1, 2025).
They also provide mechanisms for reassignment and docket equalization, including cross-division assignment procedures under specified administrative orders. Local Rules of Admin. for the Tex. Bus. Ct. R. 3.1–3.2 (eff. Dec. 1, 2025).
7. Appeals: why the Fifteenth Court of Appeals changes the strategy conversation
HB 40 amended the statute to clarify that—except where the Texas Supreme Court has concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction—the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from Business Court orders/judgments and original proceedings related to Business Court actions/orders. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.007(a).
From a strategy standpoint, this affects:
Interlocutory posture planning (what orders are likely to be reviewed, when, and by which court). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.007(a).
Precedent development: a more centralized appellate pathway can generate faster convergence on recurring Business Court questions (like the boundaries of supplemental jurisdiction). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(f); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.007(a).
8. Strategic considerations: when the Business Court is a competitive advantage (and when it isn’t)
A. When you generally want the Business Court
You should strongly evaluate the Business Court when the dispute involves:
Control, governance, fiduciary-duty, or derivative disputes where the economics are large enough (or the statutory criteria otherwise fit). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b).
M&A / transaction disputes that qualify as “qualified transactions,” including structured series of related transactions. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.001(14); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(1).
High-dollar commercial contract disputes, especially where you can negotiate or enforce a Business Court jurisdiction clause (and still satisfy the statutory thresholds and exclusions). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(2).
Trade secret / IP-heavy commercial conflicts involving software, data security, or technology performance issues. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(4)–(5).
Arbitration-related litigation (confirm/vacate/enforce/appoint) where the underlying controversy fits the Business Court’s core categories. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d-1).
B. When the Business Court can complicate the case
The Business Court may introduce complexity when:
Your dispute includes excluded claim types (personal injury, malpractice, healthcare liability, consumer-transaction claims, etc.), creating parallel-case risk. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(h).
Your dispute is insurance-heavy (both because insurance contract actions are carved out of agreed-jurisdiction contract disputes and because the statute separately limits claims tied to insurance policy duties/obligations). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(2), (g)(4).
You cannot cleanly plead (and prove, if challenged) that you meet amount in controversy rules as the statute defines them, especially given what is excluded from the calculation and how aggregation works. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b), (d), (i).
The case is likely to generate supplemental jurisdiction disputes, because supplemental jurisdiction is agreement-based rather than automatic. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(f); BCLR 2(d) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
C. The “Business Court clause” is not a magic wand
Even if parties agree in a contract that the Business Court will hear disputes, the statute still imposes threshold and category requirements—and certain subject matters (like insurance contracts) are expressly excluded from the “agreement” pathway. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(2).
A well-drafted clause can help, but it should be paired with a realistic jurisdiction analysis and venue planning at the contracting stage. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(d)(2); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.006(a).
9. A practical 2026 checklist: “Do we qualify, and how do we get there cleanly?”
If you’re evaluating Business Court filing (or anticipating an opponent’s removal attempt), this is the operational checklist sophisticated litigants use:
Identify the best statutory hook: governance/derivative/securities (Section 25A.004(b)) vs. qualified transaction/contract/IP (Section 25A.004(d)). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b), (d).
Calculate amount in controversy the statutory way (including exclusions and aggregation). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b), (d), (i).
Screen for carve-outs (governmental entity, insurance duties/obligations, consumer claims, malpractice, bodily injury, healthcare liability, etc.). TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(g)–(h).
Confirm venue in a county within an operating division and plead it. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(a); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.006(a).
Draft pleadings to satisfy the Business Court pleading requirement (authority + venue facts). TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(a).
Prepare for a 30-day authority challenge window once an opposing party appears (and do not assume silence means acceptance forever). TEX. R. CIV. P. 354(c)(2).
If removing, build the record packet required by Rule 355(b) and meet timing requirements (especially if temporary injunctive relief is involved). TEX. R. CIV. P. 355(b)–(c).
Plan early case management: scheduling order timing, disclosures, corporate disclosure statements. BCLR 3; BCLR 4(a) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
Treat discovery disputes like a process, not an event: comply with the meet-and-confer and written pre-motion requirements. BCLR 4(d) (eff. Jan. 15, 2026).
Anticipate the appeal path (Fifteenth Court of Appeals) and structure key issues accordingly. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.007(a).
Conclusion
In 2026, the Texas Business Court is no longer a “new experiment.” It is an operating, rule-driven forum with meaningful jurisdictional breadth for sophisticated commercial disputes—particularly now that HB 40 cemented $5 million as the principal threshold for multiple high-impact case categories and broadened qualified-transaction and IP coverage. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.001(14); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(b), (d).
But the advantages only materialize if you treat the Business Court as what it is: a statutory forum with front-loaded gatekeeping, specialized procedure, and firm exclusions—and you plead, remove, or resist removal with that discipline from day one. TEX. R. CIV. P. 354–356; TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25A.004(g)–(h).