https://texasappeals.org/topics/northern-district-of-texas/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 20 Jul 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/07/united-states-v-texas-dream-act-intervention/Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/07/united-states-v-texas-dream-act-intervention/The court held that intervention to defend two Texas Education Code provisions was futile because 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a) preempts them as to aliens not lawfully present, and dismissed the would-be intervenors’ remaining claims for want of appellate jurisdiction. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented.https://texasappeals.org/2025/10/carter-v-southwest-airlines-rehearing/Mon, 20 Oct 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/10/carter-v-southwest-airlines-rehearing/In a substituted opinion, the court held that Title VII’s undue-hardship defense applies only to claims based on religious observance or practice, reversed the judgment against Southwest Airlines on Charlene Carter’s belief-based claim, affirmed the judgment on her practice-based claims and against the union, and vacated the permanent injunction and contempt sanction.https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/Mon, 01 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/Mon, 19 May 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluded that the notice given on April 18 was inadequate, and enjoined removals under the Act pending further proceedings. The opinion states that it does not address the legality of removals under the Act.https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/bondi-v-vanderstok-ghost-gun-rule/Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/bondi-v-vanderstok-ghost-gun-rule/Reviewing a Fifth Circuit judgment in a suit filed in the Northern District of Texas, the Court held that the Gun Control Act reaches at least some weapon parts kits and at least some partially complete frames or receivers, so the challenged provisions of ATF’s 2022 rule are not facially invalid. The Court did not decide whether the rule may lawfully be applied to any particular product.https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/A divided panel held that evidence the State did not disclose—that a jailhouse witness was a paid police informant—was favorable and material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that the state court’s contrary ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Judge Duncan dissented on materiality.