>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The law creates real consequences for violations.
Businesses hosting prohibited performances can face fines of up to $10,000. Performers who participate in the conduct may face Class A misdemeanor charges.
Opponents immediately challenged the law in federal court, claiming it targeted drag performers and suppressed free speech.
But on Wednesday, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for a rehearing, reaffirming its earlier decision and allowing the law to take effect.
The ruling clears the final legal hurdle that had kept the measure frozen for years.
Attorney General Paxton hailed the decision as a major victory for families and parents across Texas.
“I successfully defended a law protecting children from being exposed to sexually illicit content at erotic drag shows,” Paxton said.
Judges Focused on the Nature of the Performances
The appellate ruling was written by Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, and joined by Judge Leslie Southwick, a nominee of former President George W. Bush.
Their analysis focused heavily on a key issue that shaped the outcome of the case.
Most of the organizations challenging the law failed to prove the statute would actually apply to their performances.
According to the court, the majority of the plaintiffs—including drag performers, production companies, and pride organizations—could not demonstrate that their shows contained the kind of explicit conduct targeted by the law.
That finding undercut much of the legal challenge.
The judges concluded that if the performances were not sexually explicit, the law would not apply to them.
However, the court did identify one organization whose performances could fall within the statute’s restrictions.
Evidence of Explicit Performances Presented in Court
The group identified by the court was 360 Queen Entertainment.
Evidence submitted during the case described performances that included a performer wearing a revealing prosthetic breastplate and rhythmically pulsing it toward audience members.
Court documents indicated that some of these performances occurred in environments where children were present.
Judge Engelhardt addressed the issue directly in the written opinion.
The performances “arguably include proscribed conduct,” he wrote.
That finding played a critical role in the court’s conclusion that the law could legitimately apply to certain performances.
ACLU Signals Fight Is Not Over
Following the ruling, the ACLU of Texas attempted to reassure supporters that drag performances themselves remain legal under the new law.
The organization also suggested further legal battles may still occur.
However, the court’s denial of a rehearing means the current case has effectively reached its end.
Senate Bill 12 will now move forward as written.
Texas Becomes First State With Enforceable Law
Texas now occupies a unique position nationally.
Several other states—including Tennessee, Florida, and Montana—passed similar laws intended to restrict sexually explicit performances involving minors.
But those measures were halted by federal courts before they could ever be enforced.
Texas, by contrast, has successfully navigated the legal challenges.
The Fifth Circuit relied heavily on the legal framework established in the Supreme Court case Moody v. NetChoice.
Under that standard, a law can only be struck down if its unconstitutional applications significantly outweigh its lawful ones.
The lower district court never fully applied that analysis when it blocked the Texas law.
That omission gave the appeals court the opening it needed to overturn the injunction.
A Legal Model Other States Are Watching
The outcome could have ripple effects well beyond Texas.
Legal experts and lawmakers across the country are closely watching the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning.
The court emphasized that the law regulates sexually explicit conduct—not a performer’s identity or artistic expression in general.
That distinction proved critical.
Under SB 12, drag performances themselves remain legal in many settings, including venues where minors are not present.
What the law restricts is sexually explicit conduct performed in front of children or in public areas.
Arizona lawmakers have already advanced similar legislation, and several other states are reportedly studying the Texas model.
The ACLU has argued the law could create what it calls a “chilling effect.”
Supporters of the measure see something very different.
They view it as a straightforward effort to draw boundaries around explicit performances involving minors.
And now, after years of courtroom battles, the law is officially set to take effect on March 18.
