The Supreme Court of Texas’s short per curiam disposition this Friday in Noyes v. State ex rel. Voges involved a serious constitutional challenge to a lifetime firearm restriction imposed through a protective order. The Court granted the petition for review, vacated the Third Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remanded in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening decision in United States v. Rahimi. 

 

But for appellate practitioners and in-house counsel, the highlight wasn't the two-page summary opinion—or even Justice James Sullivan's lengthy concurrence examining the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and the Texas Constitution’s Arms Clause. The most practically important part of the decision is Justice Kyle Hawkins’ concurrence, which identifies a procedural tool Texas Supreme Court practitioners should now be thinking about much more often: the GVR.

 

GVR stands for “grant, vacate, and remand.” At the U.S. Supreme Court, the device is familiar. When an intervening development, often a new Supreme Court decision, may affect the lower court’s reasoning, the Court can grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and send the case back for reconsideration rather than taking full merits briefing and deciding everything itself. Justice Hawkins described the federal practice as ranging from dozens to hundreds of GVRs in some terms, while noting that the Texas Supreme Court has used true GVRs only rarely.

 

The intervening event in Noyes was Rahimi, where the U.S. Supreme Court addressed firearm restrictions tied to protective orders. The Third Court of Appeals had affirmed before Rahimi was decided. After concluding that Noyes had preserved his federal and state constitutional challenges, the Texas Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals’ judgment, and remanded without oral argument.

 

Justice Hawkins’ concurrence turns that disposition into practice guidance. As he notes, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 60.2(f) already permits the Court to vacate and remand in light of changes in the law. And with the Texas Supreme Court’s new petition process—granting review before merits briefing—the window for identifying a potential GVR is now earlier and more important. If a party waits until merits briefing to explain why remand is appropriate, it may have missed the most efficient moment.

 

For appellate practitioners and in-house counsel, the lesson isn't just ‘ask for review’. It is to ask whether full review is really the right remedy. If an intervening development directly affects the court of appeals’ analysis—particularly a recent decision from the U.S. or Texas Supreme Courts—a petitioner may have a narrower, faster, and more efficient ask: grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand, so the court of appeals can reconsider in the first instance.