The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is weighing two Texas A&M University System disputes that could determine how far public universities may go in restricting student drag performances. During arguments Wednesday, judges tested whether the universities can characterize the shows as harmful conduct while also saying they are not expressive enough to receive First Amendment protection, according to a detailed hearing account.
The consolidated argument joins separate cases with conflicting trial-court outcomes. One arose after West Texas A&M President Walter Wendler canceled a student group’s charity show in 2023. The other challenges a systemwide rule adopted by the Board of Regents in February 2025. The Fifth Circuit combined the appeals for argument because both ask when performance qualifies as protected expression and how public-campus venues should be classified.
The regents’ resolution applies across the system’s 11 universities and bars defined drag-show events from special-event venues. It says such events conflict with institutional values, may contribute to a hostile environment for women and could be viewed as promoting “gender ideology.” The board directed campus leaders to cancel covered events and revise venue procedures.
A federal judge in Houston reached the opposite preliminary conclusion in the systemwide case. In March 2025, Judge Lee Rosenthal blocked enforcement against Draggieland, finding the student organizers likely to succeed on their free-speech claim. Her opinion emphasized that the ticketed performance involved clothed performers, was aimed primarily at adults and was scheduled in a theater that had hosted a broad range of public productions and political events.
In January 2026, however, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk upheld the West Texas A&M restriction after trial. He concluded the planned show had not been shown to be inherently expressive conduct and treated the venue as a limited public forum where administrators have broader authority to impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral rules. That ruling followed a divided Fifth Circuit panel’s earlier interim decision favoring the students.
At Wednesday’s argument, the system’s lawyer maintained that officials targeted conduct rather than a viewpoint. When asked about the regents’ stated concern that campus shows could promote gender ideology, he acknowledged that rationale by itself could present a viewpoint-discrimination problem. Lawyers for the student groups argued that the institutions’ own description of the shows as conveying an ideology undermines their claim that the performances are not expressive.
The court must now sort out three linked questions: whether the planned performances constitute expression, whether the campus theaters are limited or designated public forums, and whether the restrictions regulate conduct neutrally or disfavor a message. The Fifth Circuit did not announce a timetable for a ruling. Its eventual decision could guide other public universities in Texas that have adopted or considered similar restrictions, giving campus officials and student groups a common constitutional standard.
