<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Judge Leslie H Southwick on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/judge-leslie-h-southwick/</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, 22 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/judge-leslie-h-southwick/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><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></channel></rss>