Spectrum WT v. Wendler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
SPECTRUM WT,
Plaintiff,
v. 2:23-CV-048-Z
WALTER WENDLER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Spectrum WT’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Motion”), filed December 30, 2025. ECF No. 148. Defendant Walter Wendler responded on
January 7, 2026. ECF No. 153.1 Spectrum replied on January 10, 2026. ECF No. 160. The
Motion is now ripe. Having considered the Motion, briefing, and relevant law, the Motion is
DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Spectrum WT is a registered student organization at West Texas A&M
University, where Defendant Walter Wendler serves as President. See ECF No. 28 at 4; ECF
No. 144 at 12. West Texas A&M is a public university within the Texas A&M University
System. See ECF No. 144 at 15. West Texas A&M maintains several campus spaces that
students, registered student organizations, and the public may use to host events. See id.
“One of these spaces is Legacy Hall, an enclosed venue” in West Texas A&M’s student
center. ECF No. 144 at 15. Legacy Hall has hosted a wide variety of events, including “beauty
1 The Second Amended Scheduling Order requires “responses to dispositive motions” to be filed “within
seven days of the date of the filing of the motion.” ECF No. 126 at 5 (citation modified). Defendant
responded on January 7, a day late. However, Defendant did timely file his Brief in Support and
Appendix (ECF Nos. 151 and 152), and Spectrum did not raise the untimeliness of Defendant's
Response at the Pretrial Conference. Accordingly, the Court perceives that good cause exists to extend
the time for filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1).
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID <pageID>

pageants, singing competitions, concerts, religious worship, banquets, wedding ceremonies,
wedding receptions, holiday parties, movie screenings, dance-off competitions, fashion shows,
talent shows . . . [and] press conferences.” Id. at 16. In 2019, West Texas A&M students also
used Legacy Hall to hold a drag show. See id. But while Legacy Hall has hosted a wide range
of activities, West Texas A&M officials may “deny or cancel” reservations “if the proposed use
is inconsistent with the educational mission of the University.” ECF No. 151 at 20 (citation
modified).
“In 2022, Spectrum began planning a charity drag show scheduled for March 31, 2023,
at Legacy Hall.” ECF No. 144 at 17. According to Spectrum, “[t]he show was to include
choreographed dance, lip syncing, character creation, stylized hair, make-up, costumes, and
amplified music.” Jd. Spectrum wanted performers to “express themselves through their
clothing design and makeup” in order to “challenge gender stereotypes and express the
performers’ individuality and queer identity.” Id. “Proceeds from the event would [have]
benefit[ed] The Trevor Project, an organization dedicated to suicide prevention among
LGBTQ+ young people.” Jd. at 17-18.
Spectrum “instructed performers to avoid profane music or ‘lewd’ conduct.” Id. at 18.
Even so, the “event was to be emceed” by a man whose drag performer name is “Myss Myka.”
Spectrum WT v. Wendler, 151 F.4th 714, 719 (5th Cir. 2025) (internal marks omitted), reh’g
en bance granted, opinion vacated, 157 F.4th 678 (5th Cir. 2025). Myss Myka “had performed
in a highly sexual drag show off campus in February” 2023, roughly a month before
Spectrum’s scheduled show at Legacy Hall. Id. He was also set to perform during Spectrum’s
show in Legacy Hall. See ECF No. 151 at 18. Despite Myss Myka’s highly sexualized
repertoire, Spectrum invited children to attend the show. See ECF No. 144 at 18 (“[G]iven
the broader cultural debate over drag shows, the students barred anyone under the age of 18
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID <pageID>

from attending unless accompanied by a parent or guardian so that performers’ family
members could attend.”).
Spectrum formally applied to reserve Legacy Hall in early 2023, and on February 27,
2028, they received “tentative approval.” ECF No. 144 at 19. Then, on March 20, 2023, “Vice
President for Student Affairs Christopher Thomas informed Spectrum that President
Wendler was canceling the drag show.” Jd. at 19~20. Vice President Thomas “explained that
Wendler believes drag shows discriminate against women.” Id. at 20. Wendler reiterated this
view in a letter he emailed to the West Texas A&M community on March 20, 2023:
Does a drag show preserve a single thread of human dignity? I think not. As a
performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity,
gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the
amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood... .
WT endeavors to treat all people equally. Drag shows are derisive, divisive and
demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent. Such conduct runs
counter to the purpose of WT. . . . I would not support “blackface” performances
on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended
as humor. It is wrong. I do not support any show, performance or artistic
expression which denigrates others—in this case, women—for any reason... .
A harmless drag show? Not possible. I will not appear to condone the
diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward
another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require
it. Supporting The Trevor Project is a good idea. My recommendation is to skip
the show and send the dough.
Pl.’s App. at 92-94.
On March 24, 2023, Spectrum and two of its student officers brought this case against
President Wendler and Vice President Thomas, also naming the Chancellor of the Texas
A&M University System and the members of the System’s Board of Regents as defendants.
See ECF No. 144 at 21 (citing ECF No. 1); ECF No. 1 at 6-7. “The same day’—a week before
the show was scheduled to take place—the plaintiffs “moved for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction.” ECF No. 144 at 21 (citing ECF Nos. 8-9). As the day of
the show approached, however, the plaintiffs “withdrew their TRO to avoid simultaneously
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID <pageID>

planning two events—one on-campus if the Court granted the TRO, and another off-campus
if the Court denied relief.” Id. (citing ECF No. 16). In the end, Spectrum held its drag show
off-campus. See id.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint on April 18, 2023. See ECF No. 144 at 21 (citing
ECF No. 28). They alleged four causes of action: three for “injunctive and declaratory relief
(based on First Amendment viewpoint discrimination, exclusion from a public forum, and
prior restraint),” and a fourth for “damages against President Wendler.” Jd. at 21-22 (citation
modified). In early May 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF Nos. 34, 38.
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued September 21, 2023, the Court granted
in part the Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. ECF No. 59; see also Spectrum WT v. Wendler,
693 F. Supp. 3d 689 (N.D. Tex. 2028), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded, 151 F.4th
714 (5th Cir. 2025), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 157 F.4th 678 (5th Cir. 2025). In
the same Order, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding
that the Plaintiffs were not “substantially likely to succeed” on the merits. ECF No. 59 at 25.
The Court also found that President Wendler was entitled to qualified immunity and
accordingly dismissed Plaintiffs’ damages claim. See id. at 20. Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s
denial of their motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 61.
Nearly two years later, on August 18, 2025, a divided Fifth Circuit panel reversed in
part and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction against President Wendler and Vice
President Thomas. Spectrum WT, 151 F.4th 714. Judge Ho dissented. The next day, however,
the Fifth Circuit held the mandate. See Order Holding Mandate, Spectrum WT v. Wendler,
No. 23-10994 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025).
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID <pageID>

This Court held a status conference on September 10, 2025, to discern the impact of
the Fifth Circuit’s proceedings on this case. At the conference, the Court determined that it
had jurisdiction over the merits of this case while Plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal remained
pending, and the parties indicated their readiness to proceed to a final resolution. See ECF
No. 117.2 The Court accordingly reopened the case and scheduled a bench trial for February
3, 2026. See ECF Nos. 120, 121. After the parties moved to amend the Scheduling Order, the
Court entered a Second Amended Scheduling Order that set trial for January 14, 2026. See
ECF No. 126. And on October 27, 2025, the Fifth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing of the
interlocutory appeal en banc, vacating its original panel opinion and scheduling rehearing
for January 23, 2026. Order Granting Rehearing En Banc, Spectrum WT v. Wendler, No. 23-
10994 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2025).
Ahead of the bench trial scheduled for January 14, 2026, Spectrum filed this Motion
for Summary Judgment. Spectrum writes that it still intends to hold a drag show in Legacy
Hall and “has applied to hold a performance” there on April 17, 2026. ECF No. 144 at 24.
Spectrum “fear[s]” that without this Court’s intervention, President Wendler “will again
cancel” this performance. Jd.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[S]ummary judgment is warranted only when there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Cooper Indus.,
Inc. v. Tarmac Roofing Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 704, 711 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing FED. R. CIv. P.
56(c)). A fact is “material” if its existence or non-existence “might affect the outcome of the
2 After the Fifth Circuit’s panel opinion but before this Court’s status conference, Defendants moved
to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 105. The Court granted the
motion in part, dismissing the two student plaintiffs who are no longer enrolled at West Texas A&M.
ECF No. 116 at 8. But the Court rejected Defendants’ arguments as to Spectrum WT, finding that
Spectrum had organizational standing to sue in its own right. Id. at 11.
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID <pageID>

suit under the governing law,” and disputes about a material fact are “genuine” if “the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Brown v. City of Hou., Tex.,
337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and
unsupported speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” (citing
Bridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir. 2003))). “On a motion for summary
judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 163-64
(5th Cir. 2009) (citing Hockman v. Westward Commce'ns, LLC, 407 F.3d 317, 325 (5th Cir.
2004)).
“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion” and identifying the portions of the
record “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party makes this showing, “the
nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)
(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). While the moving party is not required to negate each element
of the nonmoving party’s case, it can meet its burden by demonstrating the “absence of facts
supporting the elements” of the nonmoving party’s causes of action. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.8d 1069, 1076 n.16 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1195
(5th Cir. 1986)).
“[E]ven in the absence of a factual dispute, a district court has the power to ‘deny
summary judgment in a case where there is reason to believe that the better course would be
to proceed to a full trial.” Black v. J.J. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID <pageID>

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255); see also id. (“A district court ‘has the discretion to deny a motion
for summary judgment even if the movant otherwise successfully carries its burden of proof
if the judge has doubt as to the wisdom of terminating the case before a full trial.” (quoting
Veillon v. Exploration Servs., 876 F.2d 1197, 1200 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation modified))); Kunin
v. Feofanov, 69 F.3d 59, 62 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“[E]ven if the standards of Rule 56
are met, a court has discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment ....”); 10A WRIGHT
& MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2728 (4th ed. 2025) (noting that “the court
retains some discretion to deny a Rule 56 motion” even “in situations in which the moving
party seems to have discharged its burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of fact
exists”).
ANALYSIS
The parties agree that Spectrum’s remaining claims center on a drag show Spectrum
plans to hold in Legacy Hall in April 2026. See ECF No. 156 at 3 (noting that Spectrum’s
three remaining causes of action seek only “prospective injunctive and declaratory relief’).
But they do not agree on what that show will entail. Spectrum writes that the “show’s purpose
[will be] to communicate support for the LGBTQ+ community, facilitate self-expression, and
promote students’ artistic expression.” ECF No. 144 at 24. On the other hand, citing to the
deposition of Spectrum’s current president, Defendant avers that Spectrum remains “in the
very, very early planning stages” for that show and “has not selected any of the performers,
performances, costumes, or music.” ECF No. 151 at 14 (citing Def.’s App. 198). It is also
unclear whether the 2026 show would convey any particular message at all. See ECF No. 151
at 18 (“We are not trying to convey a specific message, no.” (citing Def.’s App. at 208)). Thus,
there remains a factual dispute about the message, if any, the 2026 drag show would
communicate.
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID <pageID>

Spectrum also writes that the 2026 show will not be “inappropriate in any way.” ECF
No. 144 at 24. That only begs the question: The propriety of the 2026 show is a key remaining
fact issue. Spectrum says the show would be “PG-13”; Defendant expects otherwise. ECF No.
160 at 19; ECF No. 151 at 27 (“The parameters of Spectrum WT’s proposed 2026 drag show
at Legacy Hall are undefined, and any injunctive relief would have to prescribe in a vacuum
what type of drag show President Wendler would (or would not) be compelled to permit.”).
Defendant bases this conclusion, in part, on the 2023 drag show Spectrum held in an Amarillo
public park. See ECF No. 151 at 18 (“[A]lthough the [2023 off-campus drag show] was
advertised to WTAMU students and community members as a PG-13 show, Spectrum
admittedly did not preview or preapprove all the drag performers’ routines before they took
to the stage.” (citing Def.’s App. at 400)). Trial is how courts must resolve disputes of fact
such as this—not summary judgment.
And even if Spectrum had “discharged its burden of demonstrating that no genuine
issue of fact exists,” the Court would still deny its Motion. 10A WRIGHT & MILLER’S FEDERAL
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2728 (4th ed. 2025). This case is highly fact-bound. It will turn
on—among other things—Defendant’s motivations for prohibiting Spectrum from holding a
drag show in Legacy Hall. It follows that the parties will only benefit from “a full hearing on
the merits” rather than summary judgment, even if Spectrum’s Motion did “meet[] the
technical requirements” Rule 56 sets out for disputes of fact. 1OA WRIGHT & MILLER’S
FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2728 n.10 (4th ed. 2025). Spectrum’s Motion is therefore
DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Spectrum’s Motion is DENIED.
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID <pageID>

SO ORDERED.
January 13 2026
MA’ HEW J. KACSMARYK
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-00048-Z Document 165 Filed 01/13/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID <pageID>