statutory interpretation on Texas Appeals Journalhttps://texasappeals.org/topics/statutory-interpretation/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500Supreme Court of Texas Holds Citizens Participation Act Applies to Lilith Fund’s Suit Challenging Heartbeat Acthttps://texasappeals.org/2026/06/weldon-v-lilith-fund-tcpa/Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/weldon-v-lilith-fund-tcpa/The court held that the Fund’s declaratory-judgment suit against Sadie Weldon was “based on or . . . in response to” her earlier Rule 202 pre-suit deposition petition, so the first step of the TCPA dismissal procedure was met. The opinion does not decide whether Senate Bill 8 is constitutional or whether the suit must be dismissed, and it remands the remaining steps to the court of appeals.Fifth Circuit Holds Noncitizens Present Without Admission Are Subject to Mandatory Detention Without Bond During Removal Proceedingshttps://texasappeals.org/2026/02/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi-bond-hearings/Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2026/02/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi-bond-hearings/The court held that noncitizens present in the United States without having been admitted are “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and so must be detained without bond eligibility while removal proceedings are pending. It reversed two Southern District of Texas orders granting bond hearings. Judge Douglas dissented.Fifteenth Court of Appeals Affirms Temporary Injunction Against Attorney General’s Prosecutor-Reporting Rules as to Named Plaintiffs, Reverses It as to Nonpartieshttps://texasappeals.org/2026/01/paxton-v-garza-local-prosecutors/Mon, 05 Jan 2026 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2026/01/paxton-v-garza-local-prosecutors/The court held that Section 41.006 of the Government Code does not confer rulemaking authority on the Attorney General, so the suing prosecutors showed a probable right to relief against rules requiring reports from large-county district and county attorneys. It limited the injunction to the named plaintiffs and remanded.Fifth Circuit Panel Enjoins Removals Under Alien Enemies Act, Holding March 2025 Proclamation Does Not Identify an Invasion or Predatory Incursionhttps://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.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.