In In re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 15-25-00207-CV (Tex. App.—15th Apr. 30, 2026), a divided Fifteenth Court of Appeals reminded litigants that the adequacy-of-appeal analysis is often more important than the merits when seeking mandamus relief. 

Novartis moved to dismiss a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act qui tam case on two constitutional grounds: the relator lacked standing because it had not been injured by the alleged Medicaid fraud, and the Act’s qui tam provisions violate the Texas Constitution’s separation-of-powers clause. After the trial court denied the motion, Novartis sought mandamus relief. The Supreme Court denied relief in October 2025, but Justices Young and Sullivan wrote separately to say the Fifteenth Court’s analysis of those constitutional questions could “greatly assist” the Supreme Court in a future case. 

Accepting that invitation, Novartis refiled in the Fifteenth Court. But the majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Farris and joined by Justice Field, denied the petition without reaching the constitutional questions. It accepted that Novartis had raised important issues. But importance alone, the majority held, does not displace the ordinary appellate process. Discovery cost, litigation burden, and delay, without more, did not show that appeal after summary judgment or trial would be inadequate. 

Chief Justice Brister’s dissent saw the case very differently. He viewed the proceeding as a mass-tort-scale public-law dispute involving potentially millions of transactions, substantial public resources, and threshold questions of subject-matter jurisdiction. In his view, the court should have reached the standing and separation-of-powers issues now—especially after two Texas Supreme Court justices had already asked for the Fifteenth Court’s views in this very case.
 

That disagreement matters beyond this particular constitutional dispute. Litigants often seek mandamus when a trial-court ruling feels too important, or too consequential, to wait for a final judgment. But this decision underscores that mandamus’s “no adequate remedy by appeal” requirement is not boilerplate. Sometimes it's the whole game.

 

A strong merits argument explains why the trial court was wrong. It doesn't necessarily explain why the appellate court must intervene now. That second showing needs its own architecture: case-distorting consequences, wasted public resources, or the loss of a substantive right that cannot be restored on appeal. In this case, the Fifteenth Court did not see those factors met. If Novartis again seeks relief from the Supreme Court, we'll see whether it agrees.