Predictability and Efficiency or a Procedural Slog: Will the New Summary Judgment Rules Under TRCP 166a Live Up to their Lofty Intentions?

By: Jillian Ginger and Nick Baker

The Texas Supreme Court recently amended Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a to implement a comprehensive rewrite of the framework governing summary-judgment practice.[1] These amendments, which apply to all motions for summary-judgment filed on or after March 1, 2026, represent a significant modernization of summary judgment practice in Texas.

By codifying deadlines for responses, replies, hearings, submissions, and rulings, the rule addresses long standing concerns about delays and uncertainty in summary judgment proceedings. This article highlights the most notable aspects of these changes and their potential impact on litigants and courts.

Change #1: Response and Reply

Under the prior version of Rule 166a, deadlines for responses and replies were tied to the hearing date, which varied from case to case, sometimes creating inconsistent timelines for Texas litigants. Under the amended rule, the nonmovant must file a response within twenty-one days after the motion is filed.[2] Similarly, the movant must file a reply within seven days after the response is filed.[3] Both the response and reply deadlines can be amended on leave of court or by agreement of the parties.[4]

Change #2: Hearing or Submission Deadline

Historically, Texas courts had little incentive to promptly set hearings on motions for summary judgment. Under the new Rule 166a, an oral hearing or submission date for a motion for summary judgment may not be set within thirty-five days after the motion is filed.[5]

Thus, the earliest date that such motions may be set for hearing or submission is the thirty-sixth day after the motion is filed.[6] Once filed, the court is required to set the motion for a hearing or submission within a defined period: generally within sixty days, but up to ninety days if the court’s docket necessitates, if good cause is shown, or if the movant consents.[7]

Change #3: Who Picks the Hearing or Submission Date

In the past, movants bore the obligation to request that their motions for summary judgment be set for hearing.[8] Under the new Rule 166a, the clerk, courts, and the litigants all have a role to play in setting an MSJ for hearing.

The clerk “must immediately call the motion to the court’s attention.”[9] The court must then set the motion for hearing to occur within sixty or ninety days of the motion being filed.[10] After the motion has been set, the clerk must notify the parties of the submission or hearing date.[11] The court may reset the hearing or submission date within the deadlines provided.[12]

The implications of this change could be significant for all parties, as it seems to call for setting hearings without consulting the litigants involved regarding their availability. While the rule does allow for hearings to be reset, due to the small window of time the court must hear a motion under the new rule, it is unlikely that already over-burdened courts will be able to accommodate every request for a reset of a hearing or submission date.

Additionally, because of the extended timeline for responding and the abbreviated hearing window, it is likely that courts will need to set hearings on a motion before the nonmovant has filed a response or has had the opportunity to request an oral hearing. 

Change #4: Ruling Deadline

Like setting hearings, Texas courts historically had little incentive to promptly rule on motions for summary judgment. In fact, under the prior version of the rule, there was no deadline by which the court was required to issue a ruling.

As a result, some courts delayed ruling on such motions for extended periods.[13] Litigants sometimes were left with no recourse but to seek mandamus relief when courts failed to issue timely rulings.[14]

To address such issues, Rule 166a now requires the court to issue a ruling within ninety days after the submission or hearing date.[15] When read together with the portion of the rule governing hearing and submission deadlines, this framework could allow courts up to 180 days before ruling on a motion for summary judgment from the time of filing. That said, nothing in the new rule prevents courts from ruling before the deadline.

Change #5: Title Requirements

Rule 166a now requires that motions for summary judgment be titled in particular forms, depending on the nature of the motion.[16] Specifically, the motion for summary judgment must be titled: 1) Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, 2) No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, or 3) Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment.[17]

The rule also requires movants and nonmovants to clearly indicate in the title of their filing if they are requesting an oral hearing.[18] The rule further provides that “[a]n absent or incorrect title” will not be grounds for denial of the motion.[19]

Other Notable Changes

The new version of Rule 166a also includes several other changes to summary judgment practice in Texas:

• Withdrawal – Any withdrawal of a motion for summary judgment must be filed with the court and identify the date the motion was filed.[20]

• Proposed Order – Each party must submit a proposed order with their motion before the hearing or submission date.[21]

• Discovery Materials – Under the prior version of the rule, discovery materials not already on file with the clerk had to be filed a specified number of days before the hearing, and the applicable deadline depended on whether the materials were offered in support of or in opposition to the motion. The updated rule provides that, if discovery materials not otherwise on file are used to support a summary-judgment motion, they must be filed when the motion is filed.[22] If such materials are used to oppose summary judgment, they must be filed when the response is filed.[23]

• OCA Reporting – Federal law requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to prepare a semiannual report identifying U.S. district and magistrate judges with civil cases, bench trials, or motions that have been pending longer than specified time periods.[24] Texas now has followed suit, requiring the Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System to prepare an annual report on courts’ and clerks’ compliance with the summary judgment rules and submit it to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house of representatives.[25] The report also will be made publicly available.[26]

The Effects of These Changes

In the past, it was not uncommon for litigants to file their motions for summary judgment 60 or even 30 days before trial.[27] Now, to ensure a ruling, litigants’ motions must be filed 180 days before trial.

And, while the new Rule 166a doesn’t provide a filing deadline for a motion for summary judgment, some counties have already implemented new guidelines in an effort to comply with the updated rules that further restrict litigants’ ability to move for summary judgment. For example, Dallas County issued the following General Order on March 2, 2026:

All Summary Judgments must be filed at least 90 days before the date of the next trial setting absent leave of court. If a trial is reset, the Summary Judgment must be set at least 90 days before any subsequent trial setting. All untimely Summary Judgments will be automatically denied unless movant obtains leave of court to file within 90 days of the next trial setting. This general order supersedes any scheduling orders, Rule 11 agreements or any other agreed order submitted by the parties. This order applies to all motions for summary judgments filed after the date of this order.[28]

Practitioners with cases in Dallas County should take particular note that any scheduling order inconsistent with the above General Order will no longer control the motion for summary judgment deadline.

In sum, whether the recent amendments to Rule 166a will meaningfully enhance predictability and efficiency in Texas summary judgment practice remains to be seen. As courts and litigants continue to adjust to the updated requirements, practitioners should remain vigilant regarding new local rules and be ready to adapt in the face of such changes.