Federal courts have the authority to review and potentially block state-level border enforcement laws, as demonstrated when a federal judge blocked Texas' 2023 border enforcement law that made illegal entry a state crime, despite the law being passed by the state legislature. This case illustrates the system of checks and balances where federal courts can intervene in state legislation that may conflict with federal law or constitutional provisions.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
5.18.2026: Border law blocked againAdded:
Once again, Texas' border law has been blocked by a federal judge.
This is Monday, May 18th, 2026. [music] Texas Scorecard presents the day's first news for the Lone Star State, the Texas Minute, with your host Michael Quinn Sullivan.
>> [music] >> Thanks for kicking off your week with the Texas Minute. A North Texas city is suing its own residents so that it can take on debt that the voters have twice rejected.
More on that coming up.
A federal judge has once again blocked major portions of Texas' border enforcement law. This again stops the state from enforcing its new re-entry crime and deportation process against illegal aliens with prior removal histories just as those provisions were set to take effect. Passed by the legislature in 2023, the law makes it a state crime to enter Texas illegally from a foreign country outside of an official port of entry and give state and local law enforcement authority to arrest those accused of doing so.
This is the second case against Texas' border enforcement law. The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a previous district court injunction last month, but did not settle the underlying constitutional issues, instead finding that the original plaintiffs lacked standing prompting left-wing activists to refile with a new legal strategy.
This latest lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Texas alongside other left-wing organizations on behalf of two Honduran nationals living in Austin. They argue the law puts them at immediate risk of arrest, prosecution, detention, and forced return.
Maybe they should have come here legally.
Texas Supreme Court has ruled that a lawsuit challenging the South Texas Independent School District's decades-old property tax can now move forward holding that taxpayers do have standing to sue. The dispute stems from a special property tax in Willacy County that was originally approved by voters back in 1974 to fund the Rio Grande Rehabilitation District for handicapped persons. In 1983, the Rehabilitation District unilaterally repurposed itself into South Texas ISD, a regional magnet school district, and continued collecting the same tax without ever returning to voters for approval for the new purpose. Willacy County taxpayers argue they are now being double taxed to support both Lyford Consolidated Independent School District and South Texas ISD, even though voters never authorized a school district tax for SDISD.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Willacy County taxpayers have standing to sue. The case is seen by many as a test of how far local entities can go in changing the use of voter-approved taxes without going back to the ballot box.
A years-long controversy surrounding gender mutilation procedures at Texas Children's Hospital has culminated in a sweeping settlement with Attorney General Ken Paxton that will force the hospital to pay $10 million and fire five doctors, halt gender transition procedures, and create the nation's first de-transition clinic. The settlement resolves allegations that Texas Children's improperly billed Texas Medicaid for sex change interventions using false diagnosis codes despite a long-standing state policy prohibiting Medicaid coverage for such procedures.
Under the agreement, Texas Children's will establish a clinic intended to provide care to patients who previously underwent so-called gender transition procedures. The hospital will fully fund the clinic for at least 5 years with services provided free of charge to patients. Despite the agreement, the hospital denies any wrongdoing. In a statement, it characterized the controversy surrounding its {quote} gender affirming care program as {quote} a campaign of mis truths and mis characterizations.
That's all PR speak for we did nothing wrong and we promise not to do it again.
The Texas Minute will be right back. Hey folks, Chris Salcedo here. I've got something special for you, the Salcedo Storm Podcast. As your friendly liberty loving Latino, I bring you a mix of engaging discussions to help us fight for our state and our conservative values. It's the perfect way to stay informed and engaged in what's happening around you.
>> [music] >> So, what are you waiting for? Don't miss out on the storm of information and entertainment coming your way. The Salcedo Storm Podcast, available wherever you get your podcasts.
Okay, so here's a wild case for you. The North Texas city of McKinney is effectively suing its own residents. The city is asking a court more than 200 miles away in Austin to shut down citizen challenges to controversial airport expansion bonds. McKinney voters have twice rejected property tax backed airport expansion bonds. Rather than drop the project though, city officials moved to {quote} other city funding sources that included a financing scheme in which the McKinney Economic Development Corporation and the McKinney Community Development Corporation issued grants to be repaid with sales tax revenues for that airport's expansion.
The move was met with opposition and a locally filed lawsuit by civic groups.
Last month though, the city of McKinney and the McKinney Economic Development Corporation filed a lawsuit in Travis County District Court against all of the city's residents seeking a declaration that the 2026 airport bonds are legal and enforceable. The city wants the Travis County court to block any citizens' challenges seeking to invalidate the spending. At play is a little-known state law allowing bond issuers, including cities, to file an expedited declaratory bond validation lawsuit against a very broad group of defendants, including all taxpayers, property owners, or residents whose rights might be affected by the bonds.
The law allows such suits to be filed either in the home county or in Austin.
Talk about taxation without representation. You can keep up with all the news impacting the Lone Star State by visiting texasscorecard.com. [music] This edition of the Texas Minute was based on the original reporting of Sydney Henry, Travis Morgan, and Brandon Waltens. [music] Our producer is the great Nick Sheppard.
I look forward to seeing you out around the Lone Star State. Now, go make it a great day.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02











