Additional Coverage:
Families Sue Texas Health Officials Over Deadly Camp Mystic Flood
A federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed by the families of nine girls who tragically died in the July 4, 2025, flash flood at Camp Mystic. The lawsuit targets six current and former Texas health officials, alleging that regulators failed to enforce mandatory evacuation plan requirements for licensed youth camps.
Filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, the suit names officials from the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), including Commissioner Jennifer Shuford, in their individual capacities. The families contend that these officials violated the girls’ constitutional rights by licensing and renewing Camp Mystic despite its alleged non-compliance with state safety regulations.
The devastating flood claimed the lives of 27 campers and counselors as torrents of water surged through the historic Hill Country camp, situated along the Guadalupe River in Texas’ “Flash Flood Alley.” Camp owner and Executive Director Dick Eastland also perished while attempting to evacuate a cabin during the disaster.
Beyond the civil rights arguments, the lawsuit also advances two Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims: a “state-created danger” theory and a bodily integrity claim. Additionally, the families are seeking damages under Texas wrongful death and survival statutes through this federal action. It’s important to note that Camp Mystic itself is not a defendant in this specific lawsuit, though it faces separate legal actions related to the flooding.
According to the complaint, Texas regulations mandate that licensed youth camps maintain a written disaster plan, which must include evacuation procedures for each occupied building, be posted in cabins, and have staff trained on its contents. The filing emphasizes that this rule is mandatory, not discretionary.
The lawsuit alleges that DSHS adopted a long-standing internal practice of merely verifying that a camp had some form of “emergency plan,” without confirming that the plan actually included the required evacuation procedures for each building. Camp Mystic’s written flood instructions, cited in the complaint, advised campers and counselors to “stay in cabins unless told otherwise.” Plaintiffs characterize this as a “stay put” policy, which they argue is inconsistent with state evacuation requirements.
The complaint further alleges that inspector Maricela Torres Zamarripa conducted annual inspections of Camp Mystic from at least 2015 through 2025. A July 5, 2024, inspection report, which found “no deficiency,” is highlighted, with the lawsuit claiming DSHS renewed the camp’s license for the subsequent year based on this report.
The camp’s current license is valid until March 6, as per the suit. The filing also states that Zamarripa visited the camp again on July 2, 2025 – just two days before the flood – and that an inspection report dated July 6, 2025, also recorded “no deficiency,” even after the disaster.
The complaint details that heavy rainfall began on July 3, 2025, and a “life-threatening” flash flood warning was issued by 1:14 a.m. on July 4. The lawsuit claims that camp leadership initially instructed girls to remain in their cabins, adhering to the written policy.
The families allege that staff evacuated only five of 11 cabins in “the flats,” a low-lying area near the river, leaving six cabins unevacuated. The complaint states that most of the girls who died were housed in two cabins in this area, describing evacuation efforts as chaotic and improvised.
Under their “state-created danger” claim, the families assert that regulators created or exacerbated the risk by licensing and renewing the camp despite alleged regulatory violations, thereby giving parents a false sense of security. The bodily integrity claim argues that by licensing the camp and allegedly failing to enforce evacuation requirements, state officials effectively approved a setup that placed the girls in cabins without the necessary evacuation protections.
This case raises significant legal questions regarding whether regulatory non-enforcement can constitute a constitutional violation and how qualified immunity protections may apply.
In the wake of the tragedy, Texas lawmakers have since passed new legislation requiring camps to specify evacuation destinations, post evacuation routes inside cabins, and ensure those routes are illuminated at night.