<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Nken v Holder on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/nken-v-holder/</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/nken-v-holder/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>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></channel></rss>