<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>irreparable harm on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/irreparable-harm/</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, 29 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/irreparable-harm/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Fifth Circuit Stays Preliminary Injunctions Against Texas App Store Accountability Act Pending Appeal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/</link><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/</guid><description>In a published per curiam order, the court granted Texas’s motion to stay two universal preliminary injunctions against Senate Bill 2420 while the State’s appeals proceed. The panel concluded that Texas is likely to show the district court erred by applying strict scrutiny and by enjoining enforcement against anyone, but the order does not decide the merits of the appeals.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court Stays Order Blocking Texas’s 2025 Congressional Map for the 2026 Elections</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/</link><pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/12/abbott-v-lulac-redistricting-stay/</guid><description>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.</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 Reverses in Part Denial of Preliminary Injunction Over Canceled West Texas A&amp;M Drag Show</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/</guid><description>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.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court Enjoins Alien Enemies Act Removals of Detainees in Northern District of Texas and Vacates Fifth Circuit’s Dismissal of Their Appeal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/</link><pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/</guid><description>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.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court of the United States Stays Eastern District of Texas Order in Texas Top Cop Shop Case Pending Fifth Circuit Appeal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/02/mchenry-v-texas-top-cop-shop-cta-stay/</link><pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/02/mchenry-v-texas-top-cop-shop-cta-stay/</guid><description>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.</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>