A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Texas A&M University System from enforcing a ban on drag performances on its campuses.
The Texas A&M Board of Regents passed a resolution last month that prohibited drag shows in campus venues, arguing at the time, according to court documents, that drag shows could violate President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting federal funds from being used to promote “gender ideology.”
As a result of the resolution, Texas A&M’s flagship campus in College Station canceled “Draggieland,” an annual drag performance scheduled for Thursday in a campus theater. The Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council, an LGBTQ student group that has sponsored the event for the past five years, sued, arguing that the ban on drag performances violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas said the students’ claim is likely to succeed and issued a temporary injunction that will allow the performance to go on as scheduled while litigation continues.
“By permitting Draggieland to be held on campus, in the theatre used for a wide variety of events and performances, for those who want to attend and have bought tickets to do so, the Board does not imply that it endorses Draggieland’s message,” Rosenthal wrote in his opinion. “Instead, the Board is complying with the constitutional obligation to allow different messages and viewpoints, including those viewed as offensive to some, to be expressed at a university that is committed to critical thought about a wide range of conflicting and divergent viewpoints and ideologies.”
The Queer Empowerment Council said in a statement that it is “overjoyed” with the decision.
“This is another display of the resilience of queer joy, as that is an unstoppable force despite those that wish to see it destroyed,” the group said. “While this fight isn’t over, we are going to appreciate the joy we get to bring by putting on the best show that we can do.”
A spokesperson for the Texas A&M University System said the school has received the judge’s opinion and is reviewing its options and potential next steps.
The decision is yet another blow against policies that seek to restrict drag performances. In 2023, a federal judge struck down a Texas law that LGBTQ advocates feared would ban drag shows, and judges also blocked a similar law in Montana that targeted drag shows and events where drag performers read books to children. However, in Tennessee, a federal appeals court last year allowed a law restricting drag to stand, reversing a lower court ruling.
Texas A&M’s Board of Regents, in addition to arguing that allowing drag performances on campus could violate Trump’s order regarding “gender ideology,” also said such performances violate the university’s mission to respect others. Drag, the board said, involves men dressing in women’s clothing, wearing exaggerated makeup and prosthetics and performing in a way that “demeans women.”
The performances could “contribute to a hostile environment for women contrary to System anti-discrimination policy and Title IX,” the university said, citing a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs, according to court documents.
Rosenthal, however, said that the board didn’t show any evidence that “Draggieland” has contributed to an increase in the harassment of female students over the last five years the Queer Empowerment Council has held the performance and that the record didn’t show that any female students had complained.
In addition, Rosenthal said the board couldn’t show evidence that Trump’s executive order regarding “gender ideology” applies to drag shows “or that the Draggieland message denies the existence of the male and female sexes.”
“The QEC’s complaint makes clear that by donning clothing and makeup traditionally associated with the opposite sex, Draggieland performers intend to convey a message of LGBTQ+ support by engaging in a protected art form,” Rosenthal wrote. “The performers are just that: performers. They are acting. The performance is theater. It is not about individuals seeking to change their biological sex or claim a different biological sex. It is about actors who perform dressed differently than their biological sex. Again, the Board’s argument conflates the existence of two sexes with different ways to express sexuality and sexual themes.”
Rosenthal added, “To ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits.”
