<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>mootness on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/mootness/</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, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/mootness/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Supreme Court of Texas Holds Citizens Participation Act Applies to Lilith Fund’s Suit Challenging Heartbeat Act</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/weldon-v-lilith-fund-tcpa/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/weldon-v-lilith-fund-tcpa/</guid><description>The court held that the Fund’s declaratory-judgment suit against Sadie Weldon was “based on or . . . in response to” her earlier Rule 202 pre-suit deposition petition, so the first step of the TCPA dismissal procedure was met. The opinion does not decide whether Senate Bill 8 is constitutional or whether the suit must be dismissed, and it remands the remaining steps to the court of appeals.</description></item><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>Supreme Court of Texas Holds Attorney General May Seek to File Quo Warranto Action Against Annunciation House</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/06/paxton-v-annunciation-house-quo-warranto/</link><pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/06/paxton-v-annunciation-house-quo-warranto/</guid><description>The court held that criminal acts are not categorically excluded as grounds for quo warranto, that the trial court applied the wrong standard in denying the Attorney General leave to file, and that the records-request statutes are not facially unconstitutional. The opinion states that it does not decide the merits of the harboring allegations.</description></item></channel></rss>