In a significant ruling for Texas criminal practice, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reportedly vacated the rape convictions of three men and held they are entitled to a new trial because prosecutors allowed false testimony from the accuser to be presented. As flagged in Law360’s appellate coverage, the decision was divided — a reminder that even where appellate courts agree a trial was flawed, the path to relief can turn on contested views of materiality, prosecutorial knowledge, and prejudice.

The legal principle at the center of the ruling is a familiar but powerful one: the state cannot secure or preserve a conviction through testimony it knows, or should know, is false.

A federal judge in Nashville has dismissed the Justice Department’s criminal case against Kilmar Ábrego García, concluding that the prosecution was vindictive and retaliatory. The ruling stands out because it does more than reject a charging decision on ordinary sufficiency grounds: it ties the government’s criminal case to Ábrego García’s success in challenging his earlier removal to El Salvador.

That makes the opinion especially notable for litigators watching the boundary between aggressive prosecution and unconstitutional retaliation.

Chief Justice John Roberts has temporarily halted a lower-court order directing the federal government to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador, escalating what is quickly becoming one of the most closely watched emergency immigration disputes on the Court’s shadow docket.

The case arises from the government’s acknowledgment that Abrego Garcia was deported because of an “administrative error,” despite a lower court’s conclusion that he was lawfully present and could not be removed without due process.