Motions for Summary Judgment filed in Texas on or after March 1, 2026 are subject to new rules and deadlines that apply to the movant, nonmovant, and the court. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a has been completely rewritten, and the procedural habits (and tactics) that governed summary judgment practice for decades are no longer operative.
This article is a practitioner’s guide to the new rule. It covers what changed, why it changed, how the new deadline structure works in practice, and what plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel, and courts need to do differently starting now.
Texas Rule 166a: What Changed on March 1, 2026
The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 293 and House Bill 16 during the 89th Legislative Session, mandating a top-to-bottom revision of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a. SB 293 required strict scheduling for hearings and rulings to end the era of motions languishing on trial court dockets. HB 16 modified those judicial action timelines, extending certain deadlines from 45 to 60 days and allowing the 90-day window under limited circumstances. The Texas Supreme Court finalized the amendments and signed them on February 27, 2026 (Misc. Docket No. 26-9012). The changes took effect March 1, 2026, and apply to every motion for summary judgment filed on or after that date.
The goals were speed, consistency, and accountability. For years, summary judgment motions in Texas state courts could linger indefinitely. A motion could sit on a docket for months with no hearing set, no ruling issued, and no mechanism to force a resolution. The amended rule changes all of that by imposing mandatory deadlines on both parties and the court itself.
The court’s comment accompanying the 2026 revision makes clear that the rewrite is procedural, not substantive. The underlying legal standards for granting or denying summary judgment have not changed. What has changed is everything about how those motions move through the system.
TRCP Rule 166a (2026)
Old Rule vs. New Rule: Side-by-Side Comparison
Here is how the key provisions changed under the 2026 rewrite. The substantive legal standards for granting or denying summary judgment are unchanged; everything below is procedural.
| Procedural Issue | Old Rule | New Rule (Effective March 1, 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Response deadline | 7 days before the hearing | 21 days after the motion is filed |
| Reply deadline | Not explicitly set by rule | 7 days after the response is filed |
| Deadline clock runs from | Hearing date (floating) | Date of filing (fixed) |
| Court required to set hearing | No mandatory deadline | Within 60 days of filing (90 days with good cause or movant’s agreement); no earlier than 35 days after filing |
| Court required to rule | No mandatory deadline | Written ruling within 90 days of hearing or submission date |
| Motion title | No specific titling requirement | Must be titled “Traditional,” “No-Evidence,” or “Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment” |
| Oral argument request | Could appear anywhere in the filing | Must appear in the title of the motion or response |
| Proposed orders | Not required by rule | Both parties must submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date |
| Reply limitations | New grounds in reply addressed by case law only | Expressly prohibited by rule; reply may not raise new or independent summary judgment grounds |
| Motion withdrawals | No formal requirement | Must be formally filed and must identify the original filing date of the motion |
| Compliance reporting | None | Clerks report quarterly to the Office of Court Administration; OCA publishes annual public report |
| Legal standards for granting/denying | No genuine issue of material fact; movant entitled to judgment as matter of law | Unchanged |
You've Seen Us On
Traditional vs. No-Evidence: The Two Types of Texas Summary Judgment Motions
The amended rule formally defines each motion type, clarifying both the burden of proof and when each can be filed:
A traditional motion for summary judgment argues that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant carries the burden of establishing this through evidence attached to the motion. A traditional motion may be filed at any time after the non-moving party has appeared or answered in the case.
A no-evidence motion for summary judgment argues that the opposing party has no evidence to support one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which that party would bear the burden of proof at trial. Here the burden shifts: the movant identifies the elements it is challenging, and the non-movant must produce some evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on those specific elements. A no-evidence motion may only be filed after an adequate time for discovery. Filing one prematurely gives the non-movant a clear path to defeat it under Rule 166a(d)(3).
A party may also file a combined motion raising both traditional and no-evidence grounds. This is common when the movant believes it can win on either theory, and the rule expressly permits combining both into a single filing.
Mandatory Titling Requirements Under Amended TRCP 166a
One of the most practical changes under the revised rule is a mandatory titling requirement. Every summary judgment motion must now be titled as one of the following:
- “Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment”
- “No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment”
- “Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment”
An incorrect or absent title is not grounds to deny the motion outright. However, a court may return the motion for correction, which could restart or delay the procedural timeline. Getting the title right from the start avoids that friction entirely.
If a party wants an oral hearing on the motion, that request must now appear in the title of the motion or response itself, not buried in the body of a filing.
Backward-Looking vs. Forward-Looking Deadlines
The single biggest structural shift in the 2026 rewrite is the direction deadlines run. Under the old rule, every briefing deadline looked backward from the hearing. Under the new rule, every deadline looks forward from the filing date. That one change has cascading effects on how litigants must manage their calendars.
Under the old system, the hearing date was the anchor. A non-movant’s response was due seven days before the hearing. That meant the response deadline was only knowable once a hearing was scheduled, and if no hearing was ever set, there was effectively no deadline at all. A party could file a motion and then let it sit without setting a hearing, leaving the opposing party in a state of procedural limbo. The system rewarded delay and created asymmetric pressure on non-movants who had to track floating dates tied to an event that might never occur.
The new system flips that entirely. The filing date is now the anchor for everything. The non-movant’s response is due 21 days after filing. The movant’s reply is due 7 days after the response. The court must set a hearing or submission within 60 days of filing. The court must issue a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission. None of these deadlines depend on anything happening in the future. The moment a motion is filed, every participant in the case, including the judge, is on a defined timeline.
In practical terms, this means the old habit of filing a motion and waiting to see what happens is gone. Forward-looking deadlines demand that all parties treat the filing date as the starting gun, not a placeholder. If you are on the receiving end of a summary judgment motion, your preparation window is fixed and finite from day one.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a Deadline Timeline: Litigants and Courts
Deadlines for Litigants
Every party deadline under the new rule runs from the filing date of the motion. There is no ambiguity about when the clock starts.
- Day 0: Motion for summary judgment filed. All clocks start.
- Day 21: Non-movant’s response due (or by agreement/leave of court).
- Day 21 + 7: Movant’s reply due within 7 days of the date the response is actually filed, not 7 days from the response deadline. If the non-movant files on Day 15, the reply is due Day 22. If the non-movant files on Day 21, the reply is due Day 28.
- Before hearing: Both parties must submit proposed orders.
Deadlines for the Court
The court operates under its own set of mandatory deadlines, also anchored to the filing date.
- No earlier than Day 35: The earliest date the court may set a hearing or submission.
- By Day 60: The court must have a hearing or submission date set. This extends to Day 90 only if the court’s docket requires it, on a showing of good cause, or if the movant agrees.
- Within 90 days of hearing: The court must sign a written ruling, file it with the clerk, and provide it to the parties.
Maximum Time From Filing to Ruling
Add it up and the outer limits become clear. Under the standard setting window, the court has up to 60 days to set the hearing and then 90 days after that to rule. That puts the absolute maximum at 150 days from filing to written decision, roughly five months. If the court is granted the 90-day extended setting window, the outer limit stretches to 180 days, but only if the court also takes the full 90 days post-hearing to rule. In practice, most cases should resolve well within 150 days.
Under the old rule, there was no outer limit at all. A motion could theoretically sit unresolved for years. The 2026 amendments cap that exposure and give every litigant a reliable window for when a ruling must arrive.
How the New Briefing Deadlines Work Under Amended TRCP 166a
Under the old rule, briefing deadlines were tied to the hearing date. A response was due seven days before the hearing. This created a system where deadlines floated depending on when a court got around to scheduling things. The new rule eliminates that ambiguity entirely. Every deadline now runs from the date the motion is filed.
Response Deadline: 21 Days From Filing
Once a summary judgment motion is filed, the non-moving party has 21 days to file a response. That clock starts ticking the day the motion hits the court’s file, regardless of whether a hearing has been set or even scheduled. Parties can modify this deadline by agreement or leave of court, but the default is firm.
This is a significant shift. Under the prior rule, a non-movant could sometimes rely on a distant hearing date as informal notice of how much preparation time was available. That buffer is gone. The moment you are served with a summary judgment motion, your 21-day clock has started.
Reply Deadline: 7 Days After the Response
After the non-movant files a response, the moving party may file a reply. That reply must be filed within 7 days of the response, unless the parties agree otherwise or the court grants leave.
The rule also now expressly codifies what Texas courts had already recognized in case law: a reply cannot raise new or independent summary judgment grounds. A reply is for addressing the response, not for expanding the motion. There is one narrow exception: a reply may address a new or amended pleading filed after the motion if a ground already asserted in the motion negates an element common to a claim in that new pleading.
Mandatory Court Deadlines Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a
This is where the 2026 amendments represent the most significant departure from prior practice. For the first time, Texas Rule 166a imposes mandatory deadlines on trial courts for setting hearings and issuing written rulings. The rule carves the court’s action window into three distinct zones, each with its own significance.
The Dead Zone: Days 1 Through 35
From the moment a summary judgment motion is filed through the first 35 days, the court cannot set a hearing or submission date. This is a hard floor. No matter how light a court’s docket is, no matter how eager the parties are to move quickly, the rule prohibits any setting during this window.
The dead zone exists for good reason. It gives the non-movant time to file a response before a hearing date is even on the calendar. Under the new rule, the non-movant has 21 days to respond, and the movant then has 7 days from the actual response filing to reply. Locking out any hearing setting for 35 days ensures the briefing cycle has a realistic chance to complete before a date is locked in. Courts and parties should treat this window as preparation time, not idle time.
The Standard Action Window: Days 35 Through 60
Between Day 35 and Day 60 from the filing date is where the court must act. The hearing or submission date must be set somewhere inside this 25-day window under normal circumstances. The clerk is required to immediately bring the motion to the court’s attention upon filing, and the court should be tracking the Day 60 deadline from that point forward.
For litigants, this window matters because it defines when to expect a hearing date to appear on the calendar. If Day 60 approaches with no setting, the court is at risk of missing a mandatory deadline that will show up in quarterly OCA compliance reporting. Practitioners who want an oral argument rather than submission on briefs should have their hearing request in the title of their filing well before this window closes.
The Exception Window: Days 60 Through 90
The rule allows the court to extend the setting deadline out to 90 days from filing, but only in three specific circumstances. The court’s docket must require it, there must be a showing of good cause, or the movant must agree. This is not a default extension. It requires one of those conditions to be satisfied, and courts should document the basis in the record, both for OCA reporting purposes and to protect the setting from a challenge.
The 90-day exception window is not available simply because a case is complex or the parties are still in active discovery. Those concerns are better addressed through a motion to extend the response deadline under Rule 166a(d)(3) or through the initial docket control order. Absent one of the three enumerated bases, the court should have the matter set by Day 60.
Written Ruling Within 90 Days of the Hearing or Submission
Once the hearing or submission date passes, the court has 90 days to sign a written ruling, file it with the clerk, and provide the ruling to the parties. A court cannot simply take the matter under advisement indefinitely. The full lifecycle from filing to ruling is now expected to run approximately five to six months depending on which setting window the court uses.
Evidence Rules, Withdrawals, and Other Requirements Under Amended Rule 166a
Several additional procedural requirements apply alongside the deadline changes:
Proposed orders: Both the moving party and the non-moving party are now required to submit a proposed order before the hearing or submission date. This is no longer optional.
No oral testimony: The rule explicitly confirms that no oral testimony may be received at a summary judgment hearing. Evidence comes in through the methods specified in the rule: deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, admissions, affidavits, declarations, stipulations, and other authenticated materials.
Late-filed evidence: The court retains discretion to consider evidence filed late, but it must affirmatively indicate that consideration in the official record. This requirement removes ambiguity for appellate review. Under the prior practice, it was sometimes unclear whether a court had actually weighed late-filed materials. The new rule requires the court to say so explicitly, giving both parties a clear record on appeal.
Withdrawals: Informally notifying the court coordinator by email is no longer sufficient. Any withdrawal of a summary judgment motion must be formally filed on the docket and must explicitly identify the original filing date of the motion. That date is what starts the court’s compliance clock under the new reporting requirements. A withdrawal that fails to identify the original filing date leaves the record ambiguous and may not properly stop the clock for OCA tracking purposes.
Discovery not on file: If a party wants to use discovery materials not already in the court’s file as summary judgment evidence, copies or notices with specific references must be filed at the time the motion is filed (for movant’s evidence) or at the time the response is filed (for the non-movant’s evidence).
How to Invoke Rule 166a(d)(3) When Evidence Is Unavailable
The amended rule addresses a recurring scenario: the non-movant needs more time for discovery before it can adequately respond. Under Rule 166a(d)(3), the non-movant may file an affidavit or declaration specifying the reasons why it cannot currently present facts essential to its opposition. Based on that showing, the court has three options: extend the response deadline, deny the motion without prejudice to allow additional discovery, or issue another appropriate order.
The lesson here is that silence is not a strategy. If you need more time, you must formally say so and explain why, in an affidavit or declaration.
How Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a Enforces Compliance
The new deadlines are not aspirational. They are backed by a four-level administrative oversight mechanism designed to make non-compliance a matter of public record.
At the first level, court clerks must report compliance with summary judgment hearing and ruling deadlines to the Office of Court Administration every quarter. At the second level, the OCA compiles that quarterly data into an annual compliance report. At the third level, district court judges must submit semi-annual sworn statements disclosing hours spent on judicial duties, including reviewing filings and drafting opinions, pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration. At the fourth and most consequential level, the OCA submits the final annual report to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House by December 31 each year, making any pattern of non-compliance publicly visible at the highest levels of state government.
This four-level chain is new to Texas civil procedure. A judge who routinely misses ruling deadlines will not just face internal docket pressure. The pattern will appear in a report that goes to the Governor’s office and the Legislature.
TRCP 166a Practice Tips for Plaintiff’s Counsel
The new rule changes the rhythm of discovery and motion practice in ways that benefit plaintiffs in some respects and create new pressure in others.
Watch the 21-day clock from the moment the motion is filed
Under the old rule, response deadlines tied to hearing dates gave plaintiffs some informal advance notice. That buffer is gone. The 21-day response window begins on the filing date, whether or not a hearing has been scheduled and whether or not you have received the motion through any informal channel. Set up court filing alerts for every active case. The moment a defendant files a summary judgment motion, your clock is running.
Move immediately if you need more discovery time
If essential discovery is not yet complete, do not wait and do not simply ask for an extension in an email or a phone call. Under Rule 166a(d)(3), you must file an affidavit or declaration explaining specifically what facts you need, why they are unavailable, and what discovery would produce them. Vague assertions that discovery is ongoing are not sufficient. Courts have discretion here, but they are more likely to grant relief when the showing is concrete.
Take advantage of the hearing timeline to prepare fully
Because hearings must now be set within 60 to 90 days of the motion’s filing and cannot be set within the first 35 days, plaintiff’s counsel now has a predictable window. Use it. File your response, submit your proposed order, and if you want oral argument, put that request in the title of your response. Do not assume the court will automatically set an oral hearing; request it explicitly.
Consider Dallas County’s 90-day pre-trial rule when scheduling
In Dallas County, twelve of the thirteen Civil District Judges issued a general order requiring that summary judgment motions be filed at least 90 days before trial. A motion filed within that 90-day window will be automatically denied absent leave of court. If you are a plaintiff and a dispositive motion comes in late in the case, this local rule may work in your favor. If you are moving for summary judgment yourself, file well in advance of any trial setting.
Build summary judgment timelines into every scheduling order
At the outset of litigation, work with opposing counsel to include specific summary judgment deadlines in the docket control order. Stipulating that motions cannot be filed until after the close of discovery avoids the awkward situation where a defendant files a no-evidence motion early, triggering the 21-day response clock before plaintiffs have had a realistic opportunity to develop their case.
TRCP 166a Practice Tips for Defense Counsel
The amendments create strategic opportunities and obligations for defense attorneys that require a shift in how summary judgment practice is approached.
Title the motion correctly before anything else
This sounds basic, but it is the first thing that can go wrong. The motion must be titled “Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment,” “No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment,” or “Combined Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment.” A missing or incorrect title is not an automatic loss, but the court may return the filing for correction, which could reset the procedural timeline at a point when delay is costly. If you want oral argument, that request goes in the title of the motion itself.
Do not use summary judgment as a negotiation placeholder
Under the old rules, some practitioners filed motions before mediation as a negotiation tool or leverage play, knowing the motion might not be heard for months. That tactic is dead. Once you file, the court will set a hearing whether you want one or not. If a case is heading to mediation, consider using a Rule 166(g) pretrial conference instead to narrow the issues before that process. A pretrial conference can surface the same legal questions without starting the 150-day summary judgment clock, giving parties more control over timing and more flexibility to settle.
Draft briefs that stand entirely on their own without oral argument
Courts under pressure to meet 90-day ruling deadlines will push more motions to written submission rather than scheduling oral argument. Do not assume you will get a hearing. Draft every summary judgment brief as if the judge will read it cold, without any opportunity to ask clarifying questions from the bench. Your argument structure, the organization of your evidence, and the clarity of your proposed order all need to be self-contained. If oral argument does happen, treat it as a bonus. If it does not, your brief should already be doing all the work.
Prepare your proposed order before the hearing, not after
The amended rule requires both parties to submit proposed orders before the hearing or submission date. Draft your proposed order early and make sure it clearly tracks the grounds stated in the motion. A well-crafted proposed order gives the court a ready-made vehicle for ruling in your favor and reduces the risk of a ruling that does not fully capture what you argued.
Lock in summary judgment timelines early in discovery
The new rule’s mandatory deadlines mean that a summary judgment motion filed at the wrong time can create chaos. If you file a no-evidence motion before adequate discovery has been completed, the non-movant has a clear path to seek an extension or denial without prejudice under Rule 166a(d)(3). Coordinate with discovery schedules so that no-evidence motions are filed after the factual record has been developed. Use the initial scheduling conference to get those timelines locked in.
Know what your reply can and cannot do
The rule now explicitly prohibits raising new or independent summary judgment grounds in a reply. If you try to introduce a new legal theory or a new element in the reply brief, the court should disregard it, and opposing counsel will have a clear objection. Use the reply for what it is intended: addressing the specific arguments made in the response, pointing out evidentiary deficiencies in the non-movant’s showing, and reinforcing the grounds already stated in the motion.
TRCP 166a Compliance Checklist for Texas Trial Courts
The 2026 amendments place new obligations on trial courts that have no real precedent in Texas civil procedure. Courts that adapt quickly will be better positioned to comply with the rule and avoid OCA scrutiny.
Designate a clerk protocol for immediate motion tracking
The amended rule requires the clerk to “immediately” call any filed summary judgment motion to the court’s attention. Courts should implement a standing protocol for flagging these filings the same day they are received, logging the filing date, and automatically calculating the 35-day earliest setting date, the 60-day (or 90-day) setting deadline, and the 90-day ruling deadline from the anticipated hearing or submission date. Without a systematic approach, compliance becomes dependent on memory and manual tracking, which creates risk.
Consider submission over oral argument to meet setting deadlines
On a busy docket, finding an oral argument slot within 60 days of every summary judgment filing may be impossible. The rule expressly allows courts to set a matter for submission on written briefs rather than a live hearing. Courts that use submission more liberally will have an easier time meeting the mandatory setting deadlines. Note, however, that the rule requires the court to record in the docket the date the motion was heard or submitted, ensuring that the 90-day ruling clock is clearly documented.
Track the 90-day ruling window carefully
The most consequential new obligation for courts is the requirement to issue a written ruling within 90 days of the hearing or submission date. That ruling must be signed, filed with the clerk, and provided to the parties. Courts should build in internal benchmarks well before the 90-day deadline. A motion taken under advisement and then forgotten presents a compliance risk that will show up in quarterly OCA reporting.
Document good-cause extensions carefully in the record
The 90-day extended setting deadline (as opposed to the standard 60-day deadline) requires that the court’s docket so requires it, that there is a showing of good cause, or that the movant agrees. If a court is using the 90-day extension, there should be a clear record documenting the basis. This matters for OCA compliance reporting and for any appellate review of whether the court followed the rule’s requirements.
What to Expect From Varghese Summersett
If you are facing a summary judgment motion in a Texas civil case, or if you need counsel who understands how the new Rule 166a deadlines affect your case strategy, Varghese Summersett is ready to help. Reach out through the contact information below or use the AI tool on this page to get immediate answers to your questions.
Award-Winning Legal Excellence
Ask Varghese Summersett AI
Versus-AI has been taught everything from our website and is here to help you find the answers you need. Ask Versus-AI anything.
Frequently Asked Questions: Texas Rule 166a (2026)
Do the new Rule 166a deadlines apply to motions filed before March 1, 2026?
No. The amended rule applies only to motions for summary judgment filed on or after March 1, 2026. Motions filed before that date continue to be governed by the prior version of Rule 166a. If you have a pending motion that was filed before the effective date, the old response and hearing deadlines still apply to that motion.
What happens if I miss the 21-day response deadline?
The rule allows responses to be filed late on leave of court or by agreement of the parties. If you miss the deadline without obtaining leave or agreement, the court may rule on the motion without considering your response. The better practice is to seek an extension before the deadline expires, supported by an affidavit or declaration if the need for more time relates to gathering evidence.
What is the difference between a hearing and a submission?
A hearing involves oral argument before the judge, where attorneys can present their positions and answer questions from the bench. A submission means the court will rule based on the written briefs alone, without any oral argument. Under the amended rule, courts may use either format. The rule prohibits oral testimony at summary judgment hearings in either case; this is a motion decided on written evidence, not live witnesses.
Can a reply raise a new argument if the response raises a new legal theory?
Generally, no. The rule expressly prohibits a reply from raising new or independent summary judgment grounds. There is one narrow exception: if a new or amended pleading is filed after the motion, and a ground already stated in the motion negates an element common to a claim in that new pleading, the reply may address that new pleading. Outside of that exception, replies are limited to responding to arguments made in the response.
How do the new rules affect cases in Dallas County specifically?
Dallas County has its own additional layer. Twelve of the thirteen Civil District Judges in Dallas County issued a general order requiring that summary judgment motions be filed at least 90 days before trial. Any motion filed within 90 days of trial will be automatically denied unless the court grants leave. This requirement operates alongside the new statewide deadlines, so Dallas County litigants must comply with both. See our page on civil statutes of limitations in Texas for related procedural timing issues.
Texas Personal Injury Practice Areas
Our Texas injury lawyers fight for maximum compensation
Main Pages
Auto Accidents
Other Vehicle Accidents
Accident Types
Catastrophic Injuries
Premises Liability
Workplace & Industrial
Wrongful Death
Other Practice Areas
Locations
Injured in Texas? Get a free consultation.
If you are involved in a Texas civil case and need experienced legal representation, call Varghese Summersett at (817) 203-2220 or reach out through our contact page. We represent clients across Texas, with offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and Southlake.
