On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by students to hear a case involving a ban on drag shows at a Texas university.

Texas A&M issued the ban earlier this year. Axios reports that the unsigned order kicks the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but because the nation’s highest court refused to intervene, that likely means a drag show scheduled for March 22 cannot take place on campus.

The lawsuit was filed by an LGBTQ student group, Spectrum WT, who argued that the ban was a violation of the First Amendment, Axios reported.

An attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is representing Spectrum WT, told Axios in a statement that the ruling was disappointing.

Advertisement

That said, “we’ll keep fighting for our clients’ First Amendment rights,” JT Morris said, adding: “The show is not over.”

West Texas A&M president cancels drag show for second time following Supreme Court ruling.

This is the way.

Our Universities are to educate our students, not indoctrinate them. https://t.co/CZaLKHncO6

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) March 19, 2024

Meanwhile, later Tuesday, the Supreme Court lifted a block on the enforcement of SB 4 in Texas, which gives state and local police the authority to arrest migrants who cross into the state illegally and immediately deport them. But the law was put on hold again a few hours later when the justices remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit for consideration. It’s not clear when the appeals court will rule.

The court heard arguments on Monday in a free speech case following requests and demands by President Joe Biden’s administration of social media to remove posts over claims of “misinformation.”

In the case Murthy v. Missouri, the justices are tasked with considering what a district court judge referred to as the Biden administration’s “Orwellian” attempts to suppress online speech. The lawsuit, filed in 2022 by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual plaintiffs whose speech was censored on social media platforms, serves as the basis for the high court’s case, The Daily Caller reported.

“Even if you have not been personally censored, you’ve been impacted by this censorship because the First Amendment exists, not just for the speaker, but also for the listener,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, one of three physicians who joined the case as a plaintiff, told the outlet. “It’s necessary in a democracy that people have access to both sides of a contested issue or a public debate.”

Records obtained by the plaintiffs during the litigation revealed explicit requests from the White House urging platforms to promptly remove posts “ASAP” or deactivate accounts “immediately,” along with demands phrased in more colorful language.

“Are you guys f**king serious?” The Biden White House emailed Facebook on July 15, 2021, the same day the administration and the surgeon general held a press event during which officials called on social media platforms to be held accountable for “poison” to be posted on them.

“I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today,” the email continued. It’s not clear who sent it or who on Facebook received it.

“After the White House escalated pressure in July 2021, platforms responded by treating the CDC as the final authority on what could and could not be posted on their platforms,” the plaintiff’s brief filed with the Supreme Court noted, adding that social platforms “capitulated to virtually all White House demands going forward.”

In July, a district court judge issued an injunction prohibiting Biden administration officials in agencies ranging from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) to the FBI from engaging with social media platforms to censor speech. The judge emphasized that the allegations in the case potentially constituted “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit upheld a narrower version of the injunction, The Daily Caller reported further.

The plaintiffs are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the injunction and declare that the removal of content by social media companies under government pressure constitutes state action.

Advertisement