A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Texas may enforce its law banning sexually oriented performances in the presence of minors, reversing a lower court decision that had blocked the law from taking effect.
The ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over Texas Senate Bill 12, which restricts adult-themed performances from being conducted in front of children.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs challenging the law failed to demonstrate that they would be directly affected by its enforcement.
🎉 VICTORY! 🎉
— Sara Gonzales (@SaraGonzalesTX) November 6, 2025
Texas law preventing drag queens from sexually performing in front of children has been UPHELD by the 5th circuit court of appeals!
My organization @FamilyProjectTX’s work to expose these “all-ages” shows was instrumental in this fight and we worked directly… pic.twitter.com/Zr57cm2aVx
The law, signed by Governor Greg Abbott earlier this year, defines a “sexually oriented performance” as a “visual performance” that “(1) features a performer who is nude or engages in sexual conduct, and (2) appeals to the prurient interest in sex.”
Judge Kurt Engelhardt, writing for the panel, concluded that the plaintiffs did not show sufficient grounds to challenge the law.
“None of the Woodlands Pride conduct introduced at trial arguably amounts to a ‘sexually oriented performance,’” Engelhardt wrote.
“Because Woodlands Pride does not intend to engage in conduct that is arguably proscribed by S.B. 12, it does not have standing to seek an injunction.”
The same conclusion applied to another plaintiff, Abilene Pride.
However, the court ruled that 360 Queen Entertainment, a Texas-based drag production company, did have standing to seek an injunction against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton because its performances could potentially fall within the scope of the law.
The court’s opinion noted that because only 360 Queen Entertainment had standing, the case could proceed solely on its claim against Paxton in his official capacity.
“Because the plaintiffs only have standing to assert their claims against the Attorney General, and the Attorney General only has the authority to enforce Section One, the sole remaining issue on appeal is whether the plaintiffs have established that Section One, on its face, violates the First Amendment,” the court stated.
The Fifth Circuit did not reach a final conclusion on whether the law itself violates the First Amendment, remanding the case back to the district court for further consideration.
“The district court did not conduct this analysis, nor did the parties brief the proper standard or adequately develop the record,” the judges wrote.
“Consequently, we are unequipped to undertake this task in the first instance, and remand for the district court to do so.”
Attorney General Paxton praised the decision, saying the ruling vindicated the state’s position that protecting minors from explicit performances is both lawful and necessary.
“At the Attorney General’s urging, the Fifth Circuit rightfully expressed ‘genuine doubt’ regarding plaintiffs’ argument that they had a First Amendment right to stage graphic, sexually explicit performances in front of children,” Paxton’s office said in a statement.
Paxton added, “I will always work to shield our children from exposure to erotic and inappropriate sexually oriented performances.
It is an honor to have defended this law, ensuring that our state remains safe for families and children, and I look forward to continuing to vigorously defend it on remand before the district court.”
Senate Bill 12 was signed into law earlier this year after lawmakers cited concerns about drag performances and other adult-themed events occurring in public spaces accessible to minors.
Opponents of the law argued that it unfairly targets LGBTQ performers and infringes on free expression protected under the First Amendment.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision means that Texas can enforce the law while litigation continues.
The case will return to the lower court for a full review of the constitutional arguments raised by the remaining plaintiff.
The ruling represents another win for state officials defending legislation aimed at restricting explicit performances in settings where children are present.
