<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>redressability on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/redressability/</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, 17 Nov 2025 07:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/redressability/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Fifth Circuit Vacates Injunction Against Texas Sexually Oriented Performance Law on Standing Grounds, Remands First Amendment Question</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/</link><pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/11/woodlands-pride-v-paxton-sb-12/</guid><description>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*.</description></item><item><title>Fifth Circuit Reverses in Part Denial of Preliminary Injunction Over Canceled West Texas A&amp;M Drag Show</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/</guid><description>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.</description></item><item><title>Third Court of Appeals Dismisses Cities’ Challenge to Texas Regulatory Consistency Act for Lack of Standing</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/08/state-v-city-of-houston-hb-2127/</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/08/state-v-city-of-houston-hb-2127/</guid><description>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.</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>