https://texasappeals.org/topics/dissenting-opinions/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/2026/02/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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/Mon, 08 Dec 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/In an unsigned order on an application for a stay, the Court found that Texas was likely to show the three-judge District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith and failed to draw an adverse inference from the challengers’ lack of an alternative map. The order rests on a “preliminary evaluation” and does not decide the racial-gerrymandering claim.https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/Mon, 17 Nov 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/The court held that 360 Queen Entertainment established standing to seek an injunction against the Attorney General of Texas under Section One of Senate Bill 12, and that the other plaintiffs did not establish standing against the remaining appellants. It did not decide whether the law violates the First Amendment, remanding for the district court to apply *Moody v. NetChoice*.https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/A divided panel held that the President’s fact-findings under the 1798 Act are unreviewable but the statutory labels attached to them are not, and that the findings in Proclamation No. 10903 do not describe an invasion or predatory incursion. Two judges concluded that, on the current record, the Government’s updated seven-day notice satisfies due process; the court remanded for evidence on a sufficient timeframe.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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/07/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-age-verification/Mon, 14 Jul 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/07/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-age-verification/The Court held that H.B. 1181, which requires certain commercial websites publishing content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are adults, only incidentally burdens adults’ protected speech, triggers intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny, and satisfies that standard. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/Mon, 19 May 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluded that the notice given on April 18 was inadequate, and enjoined removals under the Act pending further proceedings. The opinion states that it does not address the legality of removals under the Act.https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/bondi-v-vanderstok-ghost-gun-rule/Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/bondi-v-vanderstok-ghost-gun-rule/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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/A divided panel held that evidence the State did not disclose—that a jailhouse witness was a paid police informant—was favorable and material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that the state court’s contrary ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Judge Duncan dissented on materiality.https://texasappeals.org/2025/02/mchenry-v-texas-top-cop-shop-cta-stay/Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/02/mchenry-v-texas-top-cop-shop-cta-stay/In an unsigned order without stated reasons, the Court granted the federal government’s application to stay a December 5, 2024 order of the Eastern District of Texas pending appeal and any petition for certiorari. Justice Gorsuch concurred and Justice Jackson dissented; news coverage identified the stayed order as a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act.https://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.https://texasappeals.org/2024/12/ex-parte-halprin-judicial-bias-new-trial/Mon, 02 Dec 2024 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2024/12/ex-parte-halprin-judicial-bias-new-trial/The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge who presided over Halprin’s 2003 capital murder trial was actually biased against him because he is Jewish, held that actual judicial bias is structural error requiring no showing of harm, and remanded for a new trial. A second claim was dismissed as an abuse of the writ.https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/In a per curiam opinion, the court held that a district court’s temporary restraining order enjoining the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from carrying out a death warrant had the effect of staying a scheduled execution and was subject to the court’s mandamus authority. The court vacated the order itself. Four judges dissented.https://texasappeals.org/2024/07/ex-parte-cook-actual-innocence/Mon, 08 Jul 2024 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2024/07/ex-parte-cook-actual-innocence/The court held that newly discovered DNA evidence, combined with evidence of false testimony and State misconduct, established by clear and convincing evidence that no rational jury would convict Cook of the 1977 Tyler murder. It did not reach his remaining due-process claims, and the habeas court had recommended denying the actual-innocence claim.