The Texas Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a temporary restraining order that Houston judges won against Gov. Greg Abbott's emergency order that restricted judges' discretion in granting bond to certain inmates.

The 16 judges do not have standing to sue the governor and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over the emergency order, which said that inmates charged with violent crimes or with violent criminal histories, among other criminal-defendants, couldn't get personal recognizance bonds to gain release from jail.

"The Texas Supreme Court's decision rightfully protects the health and safety of Texans from the unlawful release of potentially thousands of dangerous individuals into our communities. The court's ruling rightly upholds the rule of law and maintains the integrity of our criminal justice system," said Paxton in a statement.

Andre Segura, legal director of the ACLU of Texas, who represented the plaintiffs, wrote in a statement that Abbott should rescind the emergency order about bond decisions.

"It's eminently clear that the governor overstepped his authority by trying to take over the role of independent judges. Importantly, the court found that neither the governor nor the attorney general has any teeth by which to enforce this executive order," Segura said. "Prosecuting judges for following the Constitution would raise serious problems."

The judges were among a large group of plaintiffs who sued the government over the order, alleging it violated the constitution and separation of powers. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs didn't have standing because Abbott's order did not injure them. On April 10, a trial court granted the judges a temporary restraining order.

Related story:

Texas Judges Are Suing the Governor Over No-Money Bonds During COVID-19 Pandemic

The government sought mandamus relief, and now, the high court has granted it.

"On the record before the court, we conclude the judges lack standing, which means the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order their requested relief," said the per curiam ruling in In Re Abbott. "Suspending statutes that govern judges' decisions in particular cases does not amount to a personal, legally cognizable injury against the judges."

The high court wrote that it doesn't know of any precedent that would allow a judge to sue the state's executive or legislative branches, asking another court to interpret rules that govern the plaintiff-judge's decisions.

The party in a lawsuit must have a direct stake in the outcome–like an inmate who was denied relief because of Abbott's emergency order, the ruling said. An inmate would be able to challenge a ruling by a judge who had denied him or her bond, it explained. An inmate ought to argue against the constitutionality of the order, and a judge would decide the controversy.

"It is not a question for judges to ask other judges to decide," it said.

The high court acknowledged that the plaintiff-judges here worried about being criminally prosecuted by failing to follow the executive order. There would be separation of powers concerns if  a judge got a threat of prosecution.

But the judges here didn't explain why they couldn't just use well-established principles of judicial immunity to overcome a threat like that. Abbott and Paxton have said they would not prosecute judges, and the plaintiffs here don't have a credible threat of prosecution, the opinion said.

The opinion added that its decision on standing does not mean the issues in the judges' lawsuit aren't important or can't be litigated. If a criminal-defendant who was seeking bond argued that Abbott's order was unconstitutional, the judge would have to rule on the issue. The losing side then could appeal the judge's ruling.

"The executive branch cannot criminally prosecute judges for deciding cases based on what they understand the law to be. We appeal judicial decisions we don't like; we don't jail the judges," said the opinion.

Read the full ruling: