Two Texas statutes. One constitutional clause. Opposite outcomes — resolved within the same week.
After more than two years under a federal injunction, Texas Senate Bill 12 — the state's law prohibiting "sexually oriented" performances in the presence of minors — is now enforceable. On February 25, 2026, the Fifth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction that had blocked the law, declined to rule the statute facially unconstitutional, and remanded to the district court for further constitutional analysis under United States v. Rahimi and other recent Supreme Court precedents.
The Fifth Circuit's panel found that only one of five plaintiffs challenging the law — The Woodlands Pride organization — had standing to challenge it. The others lacked sufficient connection to the regulated conduct. That standing ruling has immediate practical consequences: other performers and organizations who believe they are affected by SB 12 will need to establish their own standing to bring constitutional challenges.
Practitioners advising venues, event organizers, and performers should note that the law's language remains ambiguous — the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the statute's broad scope without resolving whether specific performances are covered. Until the district court issues further guidance on remand, compliance requires conservative interpretation of what constitutes a "sexually oriented performance" under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 131. Family-friendly and all-ages drag performances remain expressly legal; the contested edge cases will be resolved in further litigation.
The Daily Texan — Fifth Circuit Lifts SB 12 Injunction ACLU of Texas — Case PageIn a ruling that creates a striking doctrinal contrast with the SB 12 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoined Senate Bill 664 — the state's "fake meat" labeling law — finding it violates the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The same constitutional provision that failed to block SB 12 succeeded in blocking SB 664.
The case, Turtle Island Foods, Inc. v. Shuford, challenged SB 664 on First Amendment, federal preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause, and due process grounds. The court's First Amendment analysis rested on the Central Hudson commercial speech framework — finding that the state could not demonstrate its interest in preventing consumer confusion was substantial when the evidence showed consumers were not confused. A survey showed 96% of Texans correctly identified Tofurky and other plant-based products as meatless without any state-mandated labels.
For food and agriculture lawyers: the decision limits Texas's power to compel specific commercial speech when the asserted interest — here, consumer clarity — is contradicted by empirical evidence. State regulators seeking to mandate product labeling will now need to demonstrate actual consumer confusion with data, not assumptions.
Texas Agriculture Law Blog — SB 664 First Amendment RulingOn February 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question of first impression to the Texas Supreme Court: does a membership interest in a Texas LLC constitute exempt property in a federal bankruptcy proceeding? The Texas Supreme Court accepted the certified question on March 6, 2026.
The business implications are substantial. If the Texas Supreme Court rules that LLC membership interests are exempt, it would fundamentally alter asset protection planning for Texas entrepreneurs and shield LLC interests from bankruptcy trustees across the state. If the court rules they are not exempt — consistent with intermediate court holdings — the status quo is preserved, but with authoritative clarity for the first time. Every Texas bankruptcy attorney and business lawyer advising clients on asset protection should monitor this case closely. A ruling is expected within six to twelve months.
National Law Review — Canada v. Sherman Certified QuestionTwo federal lawsuits filed in early March 2026 challenge the Texas Education Savings Account program's exclusion of Islamic private schools. Acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock excluded hundreds of schools accredited by Cognia — citing alleged connections to organizations designated as foreign adversaries or terrorist organizations — even though the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has not been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.
Education law practitioners should note that the Texas ESA program — one of the largest in the nation — now faces simultaneous constitutional and administrative challenges. The exclusion mechanism raises foundational questions about how Texas may condition public benefit programs on associations with religious organizations. For counsel advising religious schools on participation, the outcomes of these lawsuits could determine eligibility for thousands of students statewide.
Houston Public Media — Muslim Schools Sue Texas Over Voucher ExclusionThe Republican U.S. Senate primary — the most expensive in Texas history — ended without a majority winner. Senator John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton head to a May 26 runoff after a combined nearly $100 million in advertising produced the narrowest of margins. Paxton is vacating the Attorney General's office regardless of the outcome; the GOP AG race now heads to its own runoff between State Sen. Mayes Middleton and U.S. Rep. Chip Roy.
For the legal community, the AG runoff carries immediate significance: Mayes Middleton brings an energy-sector background and has focused on challenging federal environmental regulation; Chip Roy has emphasized federal power reduction and border enforcement. Both will inherit an office with an expansive enforcement agenda — the incoming AG will immediately face decisions about active federal court challenges and enforcement posture across consumer protection, immigration, and energy.
Texas Tribune — Five Takeaways from the 2026 Texas PrimariesSince August 2024, Texas law enforcement agencies have conducted more than 15 raids on hemp-derived THC retailers across the state — seizing inventory, equipment, and cash — without producing a single criminal conviction. The enforcement campaign operates in a legal grey zone created by the 2019 Texas Farm Bill, which legalized hemp but left the THC concentration threshold (0.3% delta-9 THC dry weight) ambiguous for products like edibles, gummies, and vape cartridges made from hemp-derived concentrates.
Criminal defense attorneys representing hemp-derived THC retailers should be prepared for challenges on both sides: Fourth Amendment challenges to the search warrants (probable cause based on THC product presence alone may be legally insufficient where products are compliant with federal hemp law) and civil asset forfeiture challenges where no criminal conviction results. The distinction between legal hemp and illegal cannabis is a laboratory question — and officers often lack field-testing tools that differentiate them.
Texas Tribune — Texas Hemp Businesses Fear Uptick in Police RaidsThe Temple Gun Club and three of its members filed a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Texas in March 2026 seeking to invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) — the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which bans civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The suit argues the federal government lacks authority to criminalize machine gun possession under the Commerce Clause.
This case is one of dozens filed nationally in the post-Bruen landscape testing the outer limits of the Second Amendment. Texas practitioners in criminal defense should monitor the district court's treatment of the Commerce Clause argument — while the constitutional theory has long been considered a long shot, the Fifth Circuit's recent Second Amendment jurisprudence (including decisions on bump stocks, untraceable firearms, and domestic violence firearm prohibitions) has made Texas federal courts a primary battleground for firearms constitutional law.
AmmoLand — Temple Gun Club Federal LawsuitOn March 4, 2026, a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on behalf of death row inmate Cedric Allen Ricks, together with a motion to stay his execution. A subsequent writ — meaning Ricks has filed before — is subject to the "abuse of the writ" doctrine, which requires the applicant to satisfy one of the narrow exceptions set out in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071 § 5.
Texas leads the nation in executions. Capital habeas practice in Texas is extraordinarily compressed — practitioners must master the interplay between state and federal habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254), exhaustion requirements, and the CCA's aggressive application of Art. 11.071 § 5. The Ricks application is a reminder that subsequent writ practitioners must identify a clear gateway exception in the initial filing — the CCA does not return cases for amendment once the gateway analysis has begun.
Leagle — Ex parte Ricks, No. WR-85,278-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 2026)With Ken Paxton vacating the Attorney General's office to pursue the U.S. Senate, Texas will have a new AG for the first time since 2015. The Republican nominee — to be determined in the May 26 runoff — will inherit an enforcement agenda spanning immigration, energy regulation, consumer protection, and federal preemption litigation. The two candidates represent meaningfully different legal philosophies.
For practitioners in regulated industries — energy, healthcare, financial services — the AG transition matters because Texas's pattern of federal challenge litigation (the office filed more than 40 multistate suits in four years under Paxton) is likely to continue under either candidate, but the target selection and priority areas will shift. Compliance counsel should begin scenario planning around the two enforcement philosophies before the May 26 runoff.
AP News — Texas Primary Results TakeawaysBeyond accepting the certified question in Canada v. Sherman, the Texas Supreme Court's March 6, 2026 orders reflect a court in mid-term stride — denying petitions in the majority of cases, abating two matters pending further development, and dismissing a direct appeal on procedural grounds.
Practitioners awaiting petitions for review denied this cycle should note that the denial of a petition does not constitute a ruling on the merits. The Texas Supreme Court denies the overwhelming majority of petitions — the court grants fewer than 10% of petitions for review each term. If you received a denial, the court of appeals' opinion below is now final for purposes of state law. Consider whether certification of questions to federal courts or legislative solutions are appropriate for recurring issues.
Texas Judicial Branch — March 6, 2026 Orders