Eagle Pass ISD Appeal Raises Questions After Public Records Show No Board Approval

A recent legal battle involving the Eagle Pass Independent School District (EPISD) has drawn public attention—not only for its implications on local elections but also for questions surrounding how legal decisions are made within the district. The case began when local resident Enriqueta Diaz filed an emergency petition in district court, seeking to compel EPISD to open a school board seat to public election following the passing of trustee Lupita Fuentes in April 2024.

Diaz argued that EPISD had failed to comply with Texas Education Code Section 11.060 by not placing the vacant trustee seat on the November 2024 ballot. On September 30, 2024, the 365th Judicial District Court agreed, with Judge Amado Abascal III granting Diaz’s petition and denying the district’s plea to the jurisdiction. The court ordered EPISD to comply with state law and schedule an election for the seat.

EPISD, through its legal representation, appealed the ruling to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio. In April 2025, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision, concluding that Diaz lacked standing to bring the petition. This decision ended the legal dispute—at least on the surface.

However, the process behind EPISD’s appeal has raised further questions. The Maverick Times News reviewed board meeting minutes and agendas from relevant dates and found no documentation showing that the board of trustees voted on or publicly discussed the decision to appeal Judge Abascal’s order.

In response to a Texas Public Information Act (PIA) request filed on June 1, 2025, the district’s legal counsel, Stacy Ferguson of Escamilla & Poneck LLP, provided a written response stating:

“The EPISD Board of Trustees has no documents that are responsive to your request. The Board was not required to take any action because the District carries insurance designed to cover this type of litigation. The insurance company made the decision to appoint outside counsel to handle this matter.”

According to Ferguson, the decision to pursue the appeal was handled through EPISD’s insurance provider, which authorized outside legal representation. While this approach may be procedurally valid, it has raised governance concerns among observers who question whether elected officials should have been consulted before proceeding with a legal challenge to a court order involving local electoral matters.

Legal experts note that public entities often rely on insurance for defense in litigation, but transparency about who makes those decisions is essential in maintaining public trust. In this instance, the absence of a board vote or official record has led some in the community to ask whether the trustees were involved at all in the decision.

As of publication, no EPISD trustee has publicly commented on the appeal process or whether they were informed or consulted before the appeal was filed. Additionally, no documentation has surfaced to show that an item related to the appeal appeared on any school board meeting agenda.

The Maverick Take

The legal resolution may be settled, but the process behind it remains murky. While it is not uncommon for insurance carriers to guide litigation strategy, the lack of transparency and public discussion raises concerns. When legal actions impact the public’s right to vote and involve taxpayer-funded institutions, the community deserves to know who is making these decisions and why.

Ultimately, the question is not whether the appeal was legal, but whether it reflected the kind of openness and accountability expected from a publicly elected school board. Clear communication, board involvement, and documented public decisions should be the norm, not the exception.

About The Author