<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>legislative history on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/legislative-history/</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, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/legislative-history/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><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 Vacates Injunction Against Texas Sexually Oriented Performance Law on Standing Grounds, Remands First Amendment Question</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/</link><pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/</guid><description>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*.</description></item></channel></rss>