https://texasappeals.org/topics/u.s.-court-of-appeals-for-the-fifth-circuit/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 17 Aug 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/08/lupe-v-abbott-sb1-disability-claims/Mon, 17 Aug 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/08/lupe-v-abbott-sb1-disability-claims/A Fifth Circuit panel held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge most of the provisions and that their one remaining claim, against local prosecutors, failed on the merits. The court reversed the permanent injunction in its entirety.https://texasappeals.org/2026/07/united-states-v-texas-dream-act-intervention/Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/07/united-states-v-texas-dream-act-intervention/The court held that intervention to defend two Texas Education Code provisions was futile because 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a) preempts them as to aliens not lawfully present, and dismissed the would-be intervenors’ remaining claims for want of appellate jurisdiction. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented.https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/Mon, 29 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/seat-v-paxton-app-store-age-law/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.https://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.https://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.https://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/2025/10/carter-v-southwest-airlines-rehearing/Mon, 20 Oct 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/10/carter-v-southwest-airlines-rehearing/In a substituted opinion, the court held that Title VII’s undue-hardship defense applies only to claims based on religious observance or practice, reversed the judgment against Southwest Airlines on Charlene Carter’s belief-based claim, affirmed the judgment on her practice-based claims and against the union, and vacated the permanent injunction and contempt sanction.https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/Mon, 01 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/spectrum-wt-v-wendler-campus-drag-show/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.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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/Mon, 19 May 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluded that the notice given on April 18 was inadequate, and enjoined removals under the Act pending further proceedings. The opinion states that it does not address the legality of removals under the Act.https://texasappeals.org/2025/04/fda-v-wages-and-white-lion-flavored-vapes/Mon, 28 Apr 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/04/fda-v-wages-and-white-lion-flavored-vapes/A unanimous Court held that the FDA’s denial orders were sufficiently consistent with its earlier guidance on scientific evidence, comparative efficacy and device type, and so did not violate the change-in-position doctrine. It remanded the question whether the agency’s failure to consider marketing plans was harmless, holding that the Fifth Circuit had read Calcutt v. FDIC too broadly.https://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.https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/A divided panel held that evidence the State did not disclose—that a jailhouse witness was a paid police informant—was favorable and material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that the state court’s contrary ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Judge Duncan dissented on materiality.https://texasappeals.org/2025/02/mchenry-v-texas-top-cop-shop-cta-stay/Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/02/mchenry-v-texas-top-cop-shop-cta-stay/In an unsigned order without stated reasons, the Court granted the federal government’s application to stay a December 5, 2024 order of the Eastern District of Texas pending appeal and any petition for certiorari. Justice Gorsuch concurred and Justice Jackson dissented; news coverage identified the stayed order as a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act.https://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2025/01/texas-v-united-states-daca-rule/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.https://texasappeals.org/2024/12/texas-v-dhs-eagle-pass-concertina-wire/Mon, 23 Dec 2024 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2024/12/texas-v-dhs-eagle-pass-concertina-wire/The court held that § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for Texas’s state-law trespass claims, that neither intergovernmental immunity nor 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bars the suit, and that Texas satisfied the preliminary-injunction factors. It granted a modified injunction; Judge Ramirez dissented.https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/md-v-abbott-foster-care-contempt-reassignment/Mon, 04 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/md-v-abbott-foster-care-contempt-reassignment/A Fifth Circuit panel held that $100,000-per-day contempt fines against a Texas Health and Human Services Commission official were a criminal sanction imposed without the required protections and barred by state sovereign immunity, and that the state had substantially complied with the orders at issue. The court also directed that the foster care class action be reassigned to a different district judge.