<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Immigration and Nationality Act on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/immigration-and-nationality-act/</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/immigration-and-nationality-act/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>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>Fifth Circuit Panel Enjoins Removals Under Alien Enemies Act, Holding March 2025 Proclamation Does Not Identify an Invasion or Predatory Incursion</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/</link><pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/</guid><description>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.</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>Fifth Circuit Holds Texas Is Entitled to Preliminary Injunction Against Border Patrol Cutting of Concertina Wire Near Eagle Pass</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2024/12/texas-v-dhs-eagle-pass-concertina-wire/</link><pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2024 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2024/12/texas-v-dhs-eagle-pass-concertina-wire/</guid><description>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.</description></item></channel></rss>