Department of Homeland Security on Texas Appeals Journalhttps://texasappeals.org/topics/department-of-homeland-security/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:00 -0600Fifth Circuit Holds Noncitizens Present Without Admission Are Subject to Mandatory Detention Without Bond During Removal Proceedingshttps://texasappeals.org/2026/02/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi-bond-hearings/Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2026/02/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi-bond-hearings/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.Fifth Circuit Holds DACA Final Rule Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act but Limits Relief to Texas and Leaves Forbearance Provisions Intacthttps://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/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.Fifth Circuit Holds Texas Is Entitled to Preliminary Injunction Against Border Patrol Cutting of Concertina Wire Near Eagle Passhttps://texasappeals.org/2024/12/texas-v-dhs-eagle-pass-concertina-wire/Mon, 23 Dec 2024 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2024/12/texas-v-dhs-eagle-pass-concertina-wire/The court held that § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for Texas’s state-law trespass claims, that neither intergovernmental immunity nor 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bars the suit, and that Texas satisfied the preliminary-injunction factors. It granted a modified injunction; Judge Ramirez dissented.