Thread by @EithanHaim

One year before Judge Hittner, a Regan appointee, took on my case, a well-known trans-activist/drag performer, Brigitte Bandit (they/them), was twerking in his courtroom.

Bandit and other trans activists, represented by the ACLU, were challenging SB-12, law passed by the Texas Senate which banned sexualized drag performances in front of children.

Hittner seemed to be quite moved by Bandit's performance because he ended up striking down SB-12, ensuring the twerking going on in his courtroom would also continue in front of children.

The story surrounding SB-12 is so important because it helps explain one of the main contradictions in my case - how was it possible that a seemingly conservative Judge allowed the DOJ to break every rule in the book to target a whistleblower who exposed a major hospital for lying about harmful transgender interventions?

A deep dive into the SB-12 hearings shows this was no contradiction. 🧵

1/

To start this off, consider Judge Hittner's response to the New Yorker after he overturned the bill. He was asked about his reaction to Bandit twerking in his courtroom.

They write, "The moment seemed to have impressed the judge. 'Darn it, it was interesting...you learn about different things and different folks and different science every day.'”

From this response you can see that Hittner seemed positively enamored. But what was it about this case that he was so interested in? What "science" was Hittner referring to?

2/

Was Hittner referring to the moment he asked the plaintiffs to explain what they meant by a "death drop?"

Which is when a when drag performer, sometimes dressed in string bikinis, bends one leg behind their exposed butt and does a split.

They go on to explain this is often associated with wardrobe malfunctions, resulting in exposure of the performer's genitalia to the audience.

And this audience can include YOUNG CHILDREN.

3/

Or was he interested in the part where the plaintiffs talked about how CHILDREN might have the chance to grab a drag performer's fake breasts or spank them at some point during the show?

Or maybe it was the part where the plaintiffs and their attorneys explain that CHILDREN stuff dollar bills into the waistbands of scantily clad drag performers and that this serves as an expression of appreciation for their "aesthetics."

4/

I'm no lawyer but letting kids be a part of a drag show where they are spanking nude adults and shoving dollar bills into G-strings seems legally problematic to say the least.

Even if a judge felt this was protected by the first amendment, Judge Hittner went a step further by displaying a fawning interest in this ideology.

When you look at the reasons Judge Hittner provides in overturning SB-12 you can see how he adopted the most radical elements of the transgender ideology.

And remember this is only one year before he took on my case.

5/

One of the reasons Hittner provides for overturning SB-12 is parental consent - even if they are consenting to something that is likely harmful (i.e. hypersexualized drag performances).

This is an important corollary to my case because if Hittner believes in this then he also likely subscribes to the "informed consent" model in transgender medicine which amounts to an "anything-goes as long as the parents consent" standard.

That "anything goes" mentality applies just as equally to sexually explicit performances in front of children as it does to sterilizing procedures from doctors.

6/

Another reason Hittner provides for overturning SB-12 is the plaintiffs' argument that the law discriminates based on "gender other than the one they are assigned..."

The key words here are "gender" and "assigned."

By citing this reason, he legitimizes the bogus argument that sex is subjectively assigned rather than biologically determined.

7/

Given all of this it should be no surprise that in his ruling Judge Hittner applied the strictest scrutiny to the plaintiff's first amendment arguments.

I won't pretend to be the legal expert but the most important of these as it relates to my case is prior restraint.

Judge Hittner argued that SB-12 was a form of prior restraint insofar as it exerted an "excessive discretion" of speech or prevented certain speech before it occurred, thus, violating the first amendment.

8/

Given his ruling on SB-12 and his careful consideration of first amendment issues, the question is whether he would apply the same standard in my case. Or was it going to be like the famous quote from Animal Farm where "some animals are more equal than others."

In my case it was all Animal Farm.

This was apparent throughout the entirety of the case but nowhere was this more flagrant than when the DOJ submitted a motion for a gag order. They claimed they would not be afforded a fair trial if I continued to comment on their corruption and incompetence.

Judge Hittner did something very peculiar in response - he didn't grant the motion or deny it. Rather, he left it as an open motion and threatened to send me to jail if I continued to criticize the government.

9/

By not making a definitive ruling he allowed himself to not define the parameters of what I could or could not say but he still threatened me with jail if I continued to speak out.

But I couldn't know when I would risk going to jail because he never defined what I could or could not say.

And I had no legal remedy because I had no chance to appeal the gag order since he never made a decision on the gag order in the first place.

And because we already had a million dollars in legal debt, we didn't have the resources to challenge it anyway.

This was the epitome of an illegal use of prior restraint, amounting to a de facto gag order.

So even though Judge Hittner used the issue of prior restraint in his reasoning to strike down SB-12, he was now employing the very thing his decision recognized as unconstitutional (i.e. prior restraint) as a means to silence my criticism of the government

In this way, Judge Hittner ensured his courtroom came to reflect the famous Animal Farm quote. And it became clear who was "more equal" and that I was one of the "others."