<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>field preemption on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/field-preemption/</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, 11 May 2026 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/field-preemption/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>En Banc Fifth Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Against Texas Senate Bill 4, Holding Plaintiffs Lack Standing</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2026/05/united-states-v-texas-sb-4-en-banc/</link><pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2026/05/united-states-v-texas-sb-4-en-banc/</guid><description>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.</description></item><item><title>Third Court of Appeals Dismisses Cities’ Challenge to Texas Regulatory Consistency Act for Lack of Standing</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/08/state-v-city-of-houston-hb-2127/</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/08/state-v-city-of-houston-hb-2127/</guid><description>The court held that Houston, San Antonio and El Paso did not plead an injury-in-fact or an injury traceable to the State of Texas, reversed a trial-court judgment declaring House Bill 2127 unconstitutional, and dismissed the suit without prejudice. The court did not decide whether the Act is constitutional.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court of Texas Holds Attorney General May Seek to File Quo Warranto Action Against Annunciation House</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/06/paxton-v-annunciation-house-quo-warranto/</link><pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/06/paxton-v-annunciation-house-quo-warranto/</guid><description>The court held that criminal acts are not categorically excluded as grounds for quo warranto, that the trial court applied the wrong standard in denying the Attorney General leave to file, and that the records-request statutes are not facially unconstitutional. The opinion states that it does not decide the merits of the harboring allegations.</description></item></channel></rss>