https://texasappeals.org/topics/obscenity/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 17 Nov 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://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.