Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council v. Mahomes, 772 F.Supp.3d 792

The Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council (QEC), a student group, sponsored an annual drag show (“Draggieland”) at Texas A&M’s College Station campus for several years without issue.
In 2025, after QEC had reserved the on-campus Rudder Theatre and sold tickets, the Texas A&M Board of Regents passed a resolution banning drag events from “Special Event Venues” on campus, citing university values and alleged inconsistency with a federal executive order and Title IX.
The ban explicitly targeted events involving “biological males dressing in women’s clothing” and characterized such performances as “demeaning to women.”
QEC filed suit, seeking a preliminary injunction to allow Draggieland to proceed as scheduled, asserting that the ban violated their First Amendment rights.
The court considered whether the ban was constitutional under the First Amendment, including whether it was a viewpoint-based restriction, whether the venue was a public forum, and if the ban was justified or narrowly tailored.
The court granted a preliminary injunction, allowing Draggieland to proceed as scheduled and barring enforcement of the ban, with no bond required of the QEC.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether drag shows (specifically Draggieland) are protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment	QEC: Draggieland and drag shows are expressive conduct conveying political, social, cultural messages	Board: Not clear drag shows are expressive or protected; context is sexualized performance	Draggieland is protected expressive conduct
Whether the Board’s drag show ban is an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction	QEC: Ban targets speech based on disagreement with message (LGBTQ+, gender ideology, etc.)	Board: Ban is viewpoint-neutral, targets conduct that is demeaning/vulgar/lewd, not speech or viewpoint	Ban is viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional
Whether the Rudder Theatre is a designated public forum	QEC: Venue is open to student groups/public, used for wide range of events	Board: Theatre is a limited public forum, university can restrict speech more	Rudder Theatre is a designated public forum
Whether the ban is justified by concerns over Title IX or federal executive orders	QEC: No evidence of harassment; ban is not narrowly tailored; attendees can choose to stay away	Board: Ban needed to comply with Title IX, prevent harassment, and align with federal/state directives	Ban not narrowly tailored or justified; not compelled by cited laws

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (Supreme Court precedent for expressive conduct analysis)
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (Expressive activity protected even if not clearly articulable message)
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (Viewpoint discrimination bars exclusion from university public forum)
Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (Offensive or indecent ideas on university campuses are still protected speech)
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (Denial of campus facilities to certain groups must withstand strict scrutiny)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (Loss of First Amendment freedoms is irreparable harm)
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (Universities cannot suppress speech simply because it is abhorrent to some)
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (Theatrical performances protected as expressive conduct)
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (Restrictions on "lewd" speech in high school not directly transferrable to university setting)