On March 1, 2026, a comprehensive rewrite of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing the way summary judgment deadlines work in Texas state courts. Authorized by Misc. Docket No. 26-9012 and signed by the full Court on February 27, 2026, the amended rule implements Section 23.303 of the Texas Government Code and applies to any motion for summary judgment filed on or after March 1. For Texas litigators, the single most important change is this: the briefing deadlines no longer count backward from the hearing date — they now count forward from the date the motion is filed.
Under the old rule, summary judgment timing revolved around the hearing. The movant had to file and serve the motion at least 21 days before the hearing, and the non-movant’s response was due seven days before the hearing. Practitioners worked backward from the court’s hearing setting to calculate their deadlines. The new rule flips that framework entirely. Under amended Rule 166a(d), the non-movant must file a response within 21 days after the motion is filed. The movant then has 7 days after the response is filed to file a reply — notably, replies are now expressly authorized as of right, without leave of court. And the hearing or submission date itself cannot be set any earlier than 35 days after the motion’s filing, with the court required to set the matter for hearing or submission within 60 days of filing — or 90 days if the court’s docket requires it, on a showing of good cause, or if the movant agrees.
The new rule also introduces meaningful procedural requirements on the front end and the back end. Upon filing, the clerk must immediately call the motion to the court’s attention, and the court must then set a hearing or submission date within the rule’s timeframes. On the back end, the court is now required to sign a written ruling and provide it to the parties within 90 days after the hearing or submission date. That ruling deadline is a significant addition—the old rule imposed no comparable obligation, and motions for summary judgment could linger on a court’s docket for months without resolution. The new rule also requires both parties to submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date, further streamlining the post-hearing process.
Several other changes deserve attention. If either side wants an oral hearing, that request must now appear in the title of the motion or response—burying it in the body of the brief will not suffice. The rule continues to permit submission without oral hearing, bringing Texas practice closer to the federal model, but the title requirement ensures that hearing requests are conspicuous and not overlooked. Additionally, the new rule expressly permits courts to consider late-filed evidence, provided the court indicates its consideration in the record—codifying a practice that previously existed in a gray area. And the 2026 Comment to the rule makes clear that, apart from the deadline changes, the rewrite “is not intended to substantively change the law,” signaling that existing summary judgment case law on burdens, standards, and evidentiary requirements should remain intact.
