Supreme Court allows Texas university to ban charity drag show

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court said on Friday that West Texas A&M University does not have to allow an LGBTQ student group to host a charity drag show the school’s Christian president banned. 

Spectrum WT asked the Supreme Court for emergency intervention so its annual drag show could take place on campus. The justices denied the student group’s application without an explanation. There were no noted dissents. 

The student group hosts events for West Texas A&M’s LGBTQ community. One of these events is a drag show raising money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides suicide prevention services for LGBTQ youth. 

Last year, Spectrum WT coordinated with university staff as it planned the show. The performance would have been limited to audience members over the age of 13 and would not have featured any risque or lewd conduct. 

Although the group organized the show with university staff, it was abruptly shut down by the university’s president shortly before the event. Walter Wendler said drag shows discriminate against women by stereotyping them. Wendler went so far as to claim that no drag show could ever be a harmless event. 

“Regardless of ‘stated intent,’ such drag shows are ‘derisive, divisive and demoralizing’ to many students on campus,” Lanora Pettit, Texas’ principal deputy solicitor general, wrote. “And just as he would ‘not support ‘blackface’ performances in our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor.’” 

Spectrum WT moved its 2013 show off campus but filed a lawsuit hoping the 2024 show could return to its intended location. 

A lower court rejected Spectrum WT’s claim that the school had violated its First Amendment rights. The court said drag shows weren’t inherently expressive and therefore not protected by the Constitution. The Fifth Circuit will not hear arguments on the case until after the 2024 show. 

The student group urged the Supreme Court to block the lower court’s order. It claimed its appeal provided the court with an opportunity to combat viewpoint discrimination on university campuses across the nation. 

“Public university and college officials nationwide from across the political spectrum are appointing themselves censors-in-chief, separating what they consider ‘good’ from ‘bad’ expression on their campuses,” JT Morris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote in the group’s emergency application. 

Wendler said the student’s emergency appeal came too late and urged the justices not to reward their tardiness. 

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit