44 min
Episode 8: Spectrum WT v. Wendler Free Speech Arguments
-
- Government
Spectrum WT v. Wendler, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 29, 2024. The argument was heard by Judges James L. Dennis, Leslie H. Southwick and James C. Ho.
Excerpted from the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants:
Spectrum WT is a longstanding, recognized student organization at West Texas A&M . . . [I]n November 2022, Spectrum WT started planning a March 31, 2023, charity drag show at Legacy Hall [a campus venue].
The students planned their event to be anything but risqué. They instructed performers to avoid profane music or “lewd” conduct. And they described the planned performances as appropriate for those over 13 years old.
Eleven days before the show, Defendant and Vice President for Student Affairs Christopher Thomas informed Spectrum WT that President Wendler was canceling the drag show.
In a public edict posted online and emailed to the campus community, President Wendler declared that “West Texas A&M will not host a drag show on campus” because a “harmless drag show” could never be “possible.” Wendler’s 734-word edict focused on the “ideology” underlying drag shows. Drag, he wrote, is “a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender)” that, through “slapstick,” “stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others.”
Statement of Issues (excerpted from the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants):
Plaintiffs wish to perform a PG-13 charity drag show at West Texas A&M University, which the University’s president agreed is “performance” and “artistic expression.” Did the district court err in concluding that Plaintiffs’ drag show lacks First Amendment protection?
Before anyone took the stage, West Texas A&M’s president banned drag shows in campus forums open to student expression because, in his view, drag shows promote values that clash with his own. Did the district court err in not enjoining this viewpoint-based prior restraint on protected expression?
Resources:
Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Spectrum WT, et al.
Brief for Defendant-Appellee Walter Wendler (This is the only brief that discusses Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, but does so extensively.)
Brief for Defendant-Appellees John Sharp and Christopher Thomas
Appellants' Reply to Brief of Appellees John Sharp and Christopher Thomas
Overview of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (MTSU Free Speech Center)
Opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
Time Stamps:
(0:00:00) Argument by J.T. Morris, counsel of record for plaintiffs
(00:02:26) Questions; question by Judge Ho about comparing and reconciling CLS v. Martinez with the present case
(00:19:10) Argument by Joseph N. Mazzara, Texas Attorney General's Office
(00:19:46) Questions
(00:23:40) Mazzara begins to address CLS v. Martinez
(00:32:10) Argument by Allison Marie Collins, Texas Attorney General's Office
(00:33:01) Questions
(00:37:20) Rebuttal by J.T. Morris
(00:39:50) Morris revisits CLS v. Martinez; additional questions regarding CLS compared to the present case
The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. Learn more on our website: www.ifs.org
Spectrum WT v. Wendler, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 29, 2024. The argument was heard by Judges James L. Dennis, Leslie H. Southwick and James C. Ho.
Excerpted from the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants:
Spectrum WT is a longstanding, recognized student organization at West Texas A&M . . . [I]n November 2022, Spectrum WT started planning a March 31, 2023, charity drag show at Legacy Hall [a campus venue].
The students planned their event to be anything but risqué. They instructed performers to avoid profane music or “lewd” conduct. And they described the planned performances as appropriate for those over 13 years old.
Eleven days before the show, Defendant and Vice President for Student Affairs Christopher Thomas informed Spectrum WT that President Wendler was canceling the drag show.
In a public edict posted online and emailed to the campus community, President Wendler declared that “West Texas A&M will not host a drag show on campus” because a “harmless drag show” could never be “possible.” Wendler’s 734-word edict focused on the “ideology” underlying drag shows. Drag, he wrote, is “a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender)” that, through “slapstick,” “stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others.”
Statement of Issues (excerpted from the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants):
Plaintiffs wish to perform a PG-13 charity drag show at West Texas A&M University, which the University’s president agreed is “performance” and “artistic expression.” Did the district court err in concluding that Plaintiffs’ drag show lacks First Amendment protection?
Before anyone took the stage, West Texas A&M’s president banned drag shows in campus forums open to student expression because, in his view, drag shows promote values that clash with his own. Did the district court err in not enjoining this viewpoint-based prior restraint on protected expression?
Resources:
Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants Spectrum WT, et al.
Brief for Defendant-Appellee Walter Wendler (This is the only brief that discusses Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, but does so extensively.)
Brief for Defendant-Appellees John Sharp and Christopher Thomas
Appellants' Reply to Brief of Appellees John Sharp and Christopher Thomas
Overview of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (MTSU Free Speech Center)
Opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
Time Stamps:
(0:00:00) Argument by J.T. Morris, counsel of record for plaintiffs
(00:02:26) Questions; question by Judge Ho about comparing and reconciling CLS v. Martinez with the present case
(00:19:10) Argument by Joseph N. Mazzara, Texas Attorney General's Office
(00:19:46) Questions
(00:23:40) Mazzara begins to address CLS v. Martinez
(00:32:10) Argument by Allison Marie Collins, Texas Attorney General's Office
(00:33:01) Questions
(00:37:20) Rebuttal by J.T. Morris
(00:39:50) Morris revisits CLS v. Martinez; additional questions regarding CLS compared to the present case
The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. Learn more on our website: www.ifs.org
44 min