A federal court decision involving West Texas A&M University (WTAMU) highlights the ongoing tension between free speech claims, university authority, and the regulation of sexually explicit content on public campuses. After nearly three years of litigation, a U.S. district judge ruled in favor of the university, upholding its decision to cancel on-campus drag performances organized by a student group.
The case, brought by Spectrum WT, an LGBTQ+ student organization, challenged the university’s cancellation of drag shows planned for 2023, 2024, and 2026. Spectrum argued that the cancellations violated its First Amendment rights and amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The court disagreed, concluding that the university acted within its legal authority.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy began when West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler canceled Spectrum WT’s planned drag shows in Legacy Hall, an indoor venue located inside the Jack B. Kelley Student Center. Spectrum sued, asserting that the cancellations were motivated by opposition to the group’s message and expression.
Spectrum sought injunctive and declaratory relief, asking the court to compel the university to allow the performances. However, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk denied all such requests and dismissed the case with prejudice, effectively ending the dispute and preventing it from being refiled.
The Court’s Central Findings
Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling rested on several key legal determinations. First, the court concluded that the proposed drag shows were not clearly entitled to First Amendment protection under the specific circumstances of this case.
“The proposed show is likely not protected expressive conduct,” the judge wrote, adding that even if it were, the university acted lawfully in determining that the event was inappropriate for the venue.
The judge emphasized that not all activities involving expression automatically qualify as protected speech, particularly when conducted on government property that is subject to specific usage rules.
Legacy Hall as a Limited Public Forum
A central issue in the case was the classification of Legacy Hall. The court ruled that the venue is a “limited public forum,” not a traditional or designated public forum. This distinction is important because it determines the level of constitutional scrutiny applied to restrictions on speech.
In a limited public forum, a government entity like a public university may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions that align with the purpose of the space. According to the ruling, Legacy Hall is reserved for events consistent with the university’s educational mission and core values.
As such, the university was not required to allow all forms of expression in the space, only those that reasonably fit within its intended use.
Evidence of Sexually Explicit Content
The court relied heavily on evidence presented during a bench trial showing that Spectrum’s prior drag events included sexually explicit performances. This included an off-campus drag show held in 2023 that had been advertised as “PG-13” but allegedly involved simulated sex acts, stripping, and BDSM-themed routines.
The judge found that Spectrum failed to adequately control performers, noting that such performances sometimes occurred in the presence of children. This factual record played a significant role in the court’s conclusion that the university’s concerns were not speculative or based on mere disagreement with drag culture.
Presence of Minors on Campus
Another key factor was the presence of minors on the WTAMU campus. The court noted that the university participates in a dual-enrollment program allowing high school students to take college courses. As a result, minors are routinely present in campus facilities, including student centers.
Judge Kacsmaryk emphasized that this reality makes it difficult for the university to enforce effective age restrictions for events held in indoor, multi-use venues like Legacy Hall. Under Supreme Court precedent, the government may limit minors’ access to sexually explicit material without triggering heightened constitutional scrutiny.
This aspect of the ruling underscores that the decision was not solely about drag performances as a category, but about sexually explicit content in spaces where children may be present.
Expressive Conduct and Spectrum’s Own Testimony
The court also found that Spectrum failed to establish that its proposed 2026 drag show constituted “expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment. This conclusion was partly based on testimony from Spectrum’s own president, who stated that the group was not attempting to convey a specific message through the performance.
This testimony undermined the organization’s argument that the drag show was a form of symbolic speech intended to express a particular viewpoint. Without a clearly articulated message, the court concluded that the performance did not qualify for heightened constitutional protection.
No Viewpoint Discrimination Found
Importantly, the court found no evidence that the university’s actions were motivated by hostility toward LGBTQ+ viewpoints. Judge Kacsmaryk noted that the university continues to recognize Spectrum as a student organization and allows it to host a variety of other events, including movie nights, dances, and history programs.
“President Wendler takes issue not with the ideas Spectrum wishes to express, but the way they would do it,” the opinion stated.
This finding was central to rejecting Spectrum’s claim of viewpoint discrimination. The court concluded that the restrictions were based on the nature of the proposed activity, not the perspective or identity of the student group.
Prior Restraint and Alternative Options
The ruling also rejected Spectrum’s argument that the cancellations amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The court noted that Spectrum remains free to hold drag performances in outdoor public forums or off campus, where different legal standards apply.
By pointing to these alternatives, the court reinforced the idea that the university did not impose a blanket ban on drag performances, but rather restricted their use of a specific indoor venue.
Broader Legal Context
The decision aligns with a growing number of court rulings that closely scrutinize drag performances in public or government-controlled spaces, especially where children may be present. Similar cases are currently making their way through federal courts across the country, reflecting broader national debates about free expression, public decency, and the role of public institutions.
Attorneys for Spectrum did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The university has previously stated that its decisions are guided by respect for all students and compliance with state law.
Conclusion
The West Texas A&M ruling illustrates how First Amendment disputes often turn on specific facts rather than broad principles. The court’s decision did not declare drag performances inherently unprotected, nor did it endorse discrimination against LGBTQ+ groups. Instead, it focused on venue classification, evidence of past conduct, the presence of minors, and the university’s authority to manage its facilities.
Tags:
Local