⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears a challenge to Texas Senate Bill thirteen. The law restricts certain public investments and government contracts involving companies that Texas classifies as boycotting energy companies. Funds managed by two members of the American Sustainable Business Council were placed on the state's boycott list. The Council sued state officials, arguing that the law penalizes its members' advocacy against reliance on fossil fuels and makes it unclear how to get off the list. A federal district judge agreed that the law was overbroad and unconstitutionally vague, and issued an injunction against enforcement. Texas is appealing that ruling. The state's lawyer will argue that Texas can choose not to invest public money in companies that discriminate against the fossil-fuel industry, and that the statute regulates commercial decisions rather than speech. The Council's lawyer will answer that the law's language and enforcement reach protected expression. A central dispute is the exception for an ordinary business purpose: whether a company's stated financial reasons are sufficient to keep it off the list, and how the state makes that decision. The judges will also consider the Council's standing, its right to bring particular claims, especially the separate restriction on government contracts. Listen for the distinction between blocking the law broadly and challenging how it was applied to a particular company. Those questions concern the law's constitutionality and the reach of any remedy, not which investment strategy is best. Recording note: both sides' argument is complete; the official file ends during the judge's final administrative closing remark. That original cutoff is preserved, with no reconstructed speech.

American Sustainable v. Huffines (No. 26-50111) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 5, 2026.