A Reagan-appointed federal judge has blocked Texas from enforcing its 2023 law restricting drag performances near minors, for the second time, ruling that Senate Bill 12 is so broadly written it could criminalize everything from cheerleading routines to a Dolly Parton concert.
U.S. District Judge David Hittner, sitting on the Southern District of Texas bench, issued a new injunction barring Attorney General Ken Paxton from enforcing the law. He also denied Paxton’s motion for a new trial. The ruling found S.B. 12 unconstitutional on two grounds: its definitions are “overly broad,” and the statute amounts to “an unconstitutional form of both content and viewpoint discrimination.”
Paxton fired back immediately. In a post on X, he called the decision “a profoundly flawed decision that endangers our children and is an affront to Texas values,” adding he would “continue to fight to protect our kids” and appeal at once.
The Texas Legislature passed S.B. 12 in 2023 with a straightforward aim: ban “sexually oriented performance to be presented on the premises in the presence of an individual younger than 18 years of age” at Texas businesses. Business owners who violated the law faced fines up to $10,000 per event. Performers risked a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to one year in jail.
LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and drag performers, including a drag queen performing under the name Brigitte Bandit, sued the state after the bill’s passage. Hittner sided with the plaintiffs and issued a first injunction that same year.
But late in 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Hittner’s original injunction and allowed Paxton to resume enforcement. The appeals court also sent the case back with instructions for the district judge to reassess the statute. Courts across the country have been wrestling with similar laws; federal judges in Tennessee, Florida, and Montana have also blocked drag-restriction legislation on free-speech grounds.
Now Hittner has struck the law down again, this time applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice as his analytical framework.
The heart of Hittner’s ruling is a vagueness argument. He flagged three terms the law relies on, “visual performances,” “nude,” and “prurient interest in sex”, and found each one fatally unclear. The Washington Examiner reported that Hittner found the phrase “prurient interest in sex” undefined anywhere in Texas law, calling it “irredeemably vague.”
In his written opinion, the judge reached for pop-culture examples to illustrate how far the statute’s net could stretch:
“Just as many people criticized Elvis’s signature hip gyrations and were offended by his display of male sexuality, chastised Dolly Parton as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes, and breast exposure, and shamed Miley Cyrus for ‘twerking’ on stage during a live performance at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards, there are ‘erotic’ elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12.”
The ruling went further, noting that activities such as “cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences” could be treated as criminal acts under the law as written. For anyone offended by such performances, the judge offered blunt advice: “The solution is relatively simple… just don’t go.”
That line drew attention. Fox News noted that Hittner permanently barred Paxton from enforcement and that the ruling sparked outrage among Texas conservatives who vowed to fight it on appeal.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to shield children from sexually explicit performances. Most parents, left, right, or center, share that instinct. The Texas Legislature acted on a legitimate concern. Reports of drag events marketed to young children provoked real anger, and lawmakers responded.
But legislating morality through vague criminal statutes is a trap. It hands judges exactly the opening they need to throw the whole effort out. And that is precisely what happened here, twice.
When a law’s own definitions are so loose that a judge can plausibly argue Dolly Parton or a high-school cheerleading squad could face prosecution, the problem is not just judicial overreach. The problem is sloppy drafting. Conservatives who care about protecting children should demand legislation tight enough to survive constitutional scrutiny, not broad enough to give a federal judge a rhetorical field day.
The Fifth Circuit, which has been friendly ground for conservative legal arguments in other recent cases, overturned Hittner’s first injunction and gave him specific instructions on how to reassess the statute. He reassessed, and struck it down again, on different grounds. That pattern suggests the statute itself, not the judge, is the weak link.
Paxton has promised an immediate appeal, which will send the case back to the Fifth Circuit. Newsmax reported that this is the second time Hittner has struck down the law passed by the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature. Brigitte Bandit, one of the plaintiffs, said in response to the ruling: “Drag has always been a form of free expression, and it is a relief that the court recognized that today.”
Paxton, who is also running for U.S. Senate, has political incentive to keep the fight alive. That does not make his position insincere, protecting children from inappropriate content is a core conservative value. But political incentive and sound legal strategy do not always point the same direction.
The open questions are significant. It remains unclear whether Hittner’s new injunction applies statewide or only within the Southern District of Texas. The specific instructions the Fifth Circuit gave Hittner for reassessment have not been detailed in available reporting. And the grounds Paxton raised in his motion for a new trial, which Hittner denied, remain unspecified.
Court rulings that create strong public reactions are nothing new. Recent Supreme Court decisions and appellate rulings in other states have triggered fierce debate over judicial power and legislative intent. This case fits that pattern.
Hittner is a Reagan appointee, not a progressive activist. His earlier ruling in 2023 included language that the AP reported at the time as finding the law “likely unconstitutional” on First Amendment grounds. He has now reached the same conclusion twice, under two different legal frameworks, after the Fifth Circuit sent the case back for a second look.
Conservatives can disagree with the ruling. They can argue, as Paxton does, that it endangers children. But they should also ask why the Texas Legislature wrote a law so imprecise that a Reagan judge could not find a constitutional way to uphold it, even after being given a second chance by a conservative appeals court.
The goal of protecting children from sexually explicit material is worth fighting for. But a law that cannot survive its own definitions is not a weapon in that fight. It is a gift to the other side.
If Texas wants to win this battle, it needs a statute that says what it means and means what it says. Until then, the courtroom losses will keep piling up, and the people who drafted S.B. 12 will have no one to blame but themselves.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.