<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>strict scrutiny on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/strict-scrutiny/</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, 29 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/strict-scrutiny/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Fifth Circuit Stays Preliminary Injunctions Against Texas App Store Accountability Act Pending Appeal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/</link><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/</guid><description>In a published per curiam order, the court granted Texas’s motion to stay two universal preliminary injunctions against Senate Bill 2420 while the State’s appeals proceed. The panel concluded that Texas is likely to show the district court erred by applying strict scrutiny and by enjoining enforcement against anyone, but the order does not decide the merits of the appeals.</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>Supreme Court of the United States Holds Texas Age-Verification Law for Sexually Explicit Websites Is Subject to, and Survives, Intermediate Scrutiny</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/07/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-age-verification/</link><pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/07/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-age-verification/</guid><description>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.</description></item></channel></rss>