<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>notice-and-comment rulemaking on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/notice-and-comment-rulemaking/</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, 28 Apr 2025 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/notice-and-comment-rulemaking/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Supreme Court Vacates Fifth Circuit Judgment on FDA Denials of Flavored E-Cigarette Applications</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/04/fda-v-wages-and-white-lion-flavored-vapes/</link><pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/04/fda-v-wages-and-white-lion-flavored-vapes/</guid><description>A unanimous Court held that the FDA’s denial orders were sufficiently consistent with its earlier guidance on scientific evidence, comparative efficacy and device type, and so did not violate the change-in-position doctrine. It remanded the question whether the agency’s failure to consider marketing plans was harmless, holding that the Fifth Circuit had read Calcutt v. FDIC too broadly.</description></item><item><title>Fifth Circuit Holds DACA Final Rule Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act but Limits Relief to Texas and Leaves Forbearance Provisions Intact</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/</link><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/</guid><description>The court held that Texas has standing under its earlier decision, that the 2022 DACA rule is materially identical to the 2012 memorandum and substantively violates the INA, and that the district court erred by not severing the rule’s forbearance provisions; it narrowed the injunction to Texas. The stay protecting existing recipients remains in place.</description></item></channel></rss>