https://texasappeals.org/topics/vacatur/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 11 May 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://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/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/2025/05/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/2025/03/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/2025/01/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/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/In a per curiam opinion, the court held that a district court’s temporary restraining order enjoining the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from carrying out a death warrant had the effect of staying a scheduled execution and was subject to the court’s mandamus authority. The court vacated the order itself. Four judges 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.