https://texasappeals.org/topics/minors/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 29 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/Mon, 29 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/Mon, 17 Nov 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/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*.https://texasappeals.org/2025/07/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-age-verification/Mon, 14 Jul 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/07/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-age-verification/The Court held that H.B. 1181, which requires certain commercial websites publishing content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are adults, only incidentally burdens adults’ protected speech, triggers intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny, and satisfies that standard. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.