pre-enforcement challenges on Texas Appeals Journalhttps://texasappeals.org/topics/pre-enforcement-challenges/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 11 May 2026 07:00:00 -0500En Banc Fifth Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Against Texas Senate Bill 4, Holding Plaintiffs Lack Standinghttps://texasappeals.org/2026/05/united-states-v-texas-sb-4-en-banc/Mon, 11 May 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/05/united-states-v-texas-sb-4-en-banc/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.Fifth Circuit Vacates Injunction Against Texas Sexually Oriented Performance Law on Standing Grounds, Remands First Amendment Questionhttps://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*.Third Court of Appeals Dismisses Cities’ Challenge to Texas Regulatory Consistency Act for Lack of Standinghttps://texasappeals.org/2025/08/state-v-city-of-houston-hb-2127/Mon, 04 Aug 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/08/state-v-city-of-houston-hb-2127/The court held that Houston, San Antonio and El Paso did not plead an injury-in-fact or an injury traceable to the State of Texas, reversed a trial-court judgment declaring House Bill 2127 unconstitutional, and dismissed the suit without prejudice. The court did not decide whether the Act is constitutional.Supreme Court Holds ATF Rule on Weapon Parts Kits and Unfinished Frames Is Not Facially Inconsistent With the Gun Control Acthttps://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.