<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>amicus briefs on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/amicus-briefs/</link><description>Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/amicus-briefs/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Fifth Circuit Holds Noncitizens Present Without Admission Are Subject to Mandatory Detention Without Bond During Removal Proceedings</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2026/02/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi-bond-hearings/</link><pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2026/02/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi-bond-hearings/</guid><description>The court held that noncitizens present in the United States without having been admitted are “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and so must be detained without bond eligibility while removal proceedings are pending. It reversed two Southern District of Texas orders granting bond hearings. Judge Douglas dissented.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court Holds ATF Rule on Weapon Parts Kits and Unfinished Frames Is Not Facially Inconsistent With the Gun Control Act</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/bondi-v-vanderstok-ghost-gun-rule/</link><pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/bondi-v-vanderstok-ghost-gun-rule/</guid><description>Reviewing a Fifth Circuit judgment in a suit filed in the Northern District of Texas, the Court held that the Gun Control Act reaches at least some weapon parts kits and at least some partially complete frames or receivers, so the challenged provisions of ATF’s 2022 rule are not facially invalid. The Court did not decide whether the rule may lawfully be applied to any particular product.</description></item><item><title>Fifth Circuit Holds DACA Final Rule Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act but Limits Relief to Texas and Leaves Forbearance Provisions Intact</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/</link><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/</guid><description>The court held that Texas has standing under its earlier decision, that the 2022 DACA rule is materially identical to the 2012 memorandum and substantively violates the INA, and that the district court erred by not severing the rule’s forbearance provisions; it narrowed the injunction to Texas. The stay protecting existing recipients remains in place.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court of Texas Holds House Committee’s Subpoena Cannot Be Judicially Enforced to Cancel Roberson Execution</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-texas-house-roberson-subpoena/</link><pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-texas-house-roberson-subpoena/</guid><description>The court denied a Texas House committee’s petition, holding that the separation of powers does not permit judicial enforcement of a legislative subpoena that would require canceling a long-scheduled execution. The opinion states that the dispute has nothing to do with Robert Roberson’s guilt or innocence.</description></item><item><title>Fifth Circuit Reverses Contempt Fines in Texas Foster Care Case and Orders Reassignment to Another District Judge</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/md-v-abbott-foster-care-contempt-reassignment/</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/md-v-abbott-foster-care-contempt-reassignment/</guid><description>A Fifth Circuit panel held that $100,000-per-day contempt fines against a Texas Health and Human Services Commission official were a criminal sanction imposed without the required protections and barred by state sovereign immunity, and that the state had substantially complied with the orders at issue. The court also directed that the foster care class action be reassigned to a different district judge.</description></item></channel></rss>