https://texasappeals.org/topics/article-iii/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 20 Jul 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/07/united-states-v-texas-dream-act-intervention/Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/07/united-states-v-texas-dream-act-intervention/The court held that intervention to defend two Texas Education Code provisions was futile because 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a) preempts them as to aliens not lawfully present, and dismissed the would-be intervenors’ remaining claims for want of appellate jurisdiction. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented.https://texasappeals.org/2026/05/united-states-v-texas-sb-4-en-banc/Mon, 11 May 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/05/united-states-v-texas-sb-4-en-banc/Sitting en banc, the court held that two legal-services nonprofits and El Paso County had not shown an Article III injury and vacated the preliminary injunction against the state immigration law. The majority stated that it did not address whether S.B. 4 is preempted by federal law.https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/Mon, 01 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/The court held that, on the current record, the student group’s intended drag show would have conveyed a message implicating the First Amendment, that the campus venue is a designated public forum, and that the university president had not argued his content-based restriction survives strict scrutiny. It rendered a judgment dismissing the claim against the system chancellor for want of jurisdiction; Judge Ho dissented.