Texas Data Law

Insight

The SB 2420 Stay: What the Fifth Circuit Order Does and Does Not Decide

The stay's procedural effect, the panel's interim reasoning, and the issues it leaves unresolved.

Litigation and Enforcement · Technology and platforms · Event date: December 23, 2025 through August 4, 2026 · For general counsel, privacy leads, and business operators

A June 4, 2026 Fifth Circuit order lets Texas enforce its App Store Accountability Act while the appeal proceeds. That is the order's practical effect. It is not a holding that the law is valid. The order applies the stay standard, predicts how the appeal will come out, and decides what happens meanwhile. The appeal was argued August 4, 2026; no merits opinion appears in the sources reviewed as of October 13, 2026.

The sequence

DateEvent
October 2025CCIA sues in the Western District of Texas; Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) also challenges the law
December 23, 2025Judge Robert Pitman enjoins SB 2420 statewide, applying strict scrutiny and finding it likely unconstitutional
May 28, 2026The Fifth Circuit enters an administrative stay
June 4, 2026The Fifth Circuit grants a stay pending appeal, Nos. 25-51073 c/w 26-50001, per curiam (Judges Smith, Haynes, and Oldham)
July 6, 2026The Supreme Court declines to vacate the stay (Nos. 25A1389, 25A1390); the denials are not a merits ruling
August 4, 2026The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in the consolidated SB 2420 appeals, Nos. 25-51073 and 26-50001

What the order decides

A stay pending appeal turns on the four Nken v. Holder questions: whether the State is likely to win, whether it will be irreparably harmed without a stay, whether a stay will injure the other parties, and where the public interest lies. The panel answered them for Texas, and its reasoning is expressly preliminary.

  • Likelihood of success: the district court likely erred in applying strict scrutiny. The order reasons that SB 2420 regulates speech that proposes a commercial transaction, subject at most to intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson.
  • Exceptions and severability: the district court likely erred on the law's exceptions, severability, and vagueness. The order treats the standalone exceptions as likely not content-based and holds that challenged phrases have plain meaning or can be severed under the Act's severability provision.
  • Scope of relief: the statewide injunctions likely exceed federal equitable authority under Trump v. CASA. Any eventual relief, the order says, should run only to the SEAT plaintiffs and identified CCIA members, not to everyone.
  • Other factors: an enjoined statute irreparably harms the State, and the balance of equities and public interest favor Texas, which the order ties to the State's interest in protecting children and parents' need for information about their children's downloads.

Judge Haynes concurred only in the sentence granting the stay.

What it does not decide

The order does not finally resolve any of those points. A merits panel may see the scrutiny question differently once it has full briefing and argument. The Supreme Court's refusal to vacate the stay is not a ruling on the merits either; it signals only that the Court would not intervene at this stage.

The order also leaves open the scope of any eventual relief. If the challengers win, the injunction may protect only the plaintiffs and their members, not every app store and developer.

What it means for a business

The Fifth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunctions on June 4, 2026. The Supreme Court declined to vacate the stay on July 6, and the Fifth Circuit heard the consolidated appeals on August 4. The stay and emergency denials did not finally determine the Act's constitutionality. Under the stay, SB 2420 remains enforceable: app stores must use commercially reasonable age-verification methods and obtain parental consent for minors' downloads and purchases, and developers must use the age signals they receive. That enforceability is conditional. Build compliance so it can be paused or narrowed if the merits panel rules the other way. For the SCOPE Act's different litigation history, see SCOPE and App Stores Have Different Litigation Histories.

Sources

Related