SAN ANTONIO, Texas — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has lifted a lower court injunction and allowed Texas’ Senate Bill 12 to take effect, clearing the way for enforcement of new restrictions on certain drag performances in venues where minors are present. The ruling reverses a federal district court’s earlier order that had blocked the law, concluding that Texas may regulate performances deemed “sexually oriented” when accessible to children.

The appellate decision represents a significant legal victory for state officials, including Attorney General Ken Paxton, who defended the statute as a child-protection measure. Opponents, including performers and civil liberties groups, argue the law infringes on constitutionally protected expression and disproportionately targets drag performers.

At the center of the legal fight is not merely drag as an art form, but how Texas defines “sexually oriented conduct” — a term embedded in existing state penal law and incorporated into SB 12.

What SB 12 Does

Senate Bill 12 amends Texas law to prohibit certain performances on public property or in the presence of minors if the performances include “sexual conduct,” as defined by state statute. The law does not use the word “drag” in its operative prohibitions. Instead, it applies to performances that appeal to the prurient interest in sex and involve specific forms of sexualized conduct.

Under the statute, a person commits an offense if they engage in a sexually oriented performance on public property or in the presence of an individual younger than 18 years of age. The law classifies violations as a Class A misdemeanor, with enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.

Supporters argue the statute mirrors longstanding restrictions on sexually explicit performances involving minors. Critics contend it was drafted in response to drag events and creates uncertainty for performers who do not engage in explicit conduct.

The Legal Definition of “Sexually Oriented”

Texas does not rely on a vague or novel definition. Instead, SB 12 draws from the Texas Penal Code’s existing terminology.

Under Texas law, “sexual conduct” includes:

• Sexual intercourse;
• Deviate sexual intercourse;
• Sexual contact; and
• The exhibition of the genitals, anus, or female breast below the top of the areola.

“Sexual contact” is further defined as any touching of the anus, breast, or genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire.

Additionally, “deviate sexual intercourse” includes contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another, or penetration of the genitals or anus with an object.

The statute’s application hinges not on costume or identity, but on whether a performance includes conduct that meets these statutory definitions and is intended to appeal to prurient interests.

In court filings, state attorneys emphasized that the law regulates sexually explicit conduct — not viewpoint or identity — and parallels restrictions already applied to strip clubs and adult cabarets.

The Fifth Circuit’s Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit panel concluded that the district court erred in issuing a sweeping injunction blocking the law before it could take effect. The appellate judges found that Texas demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its argument that the statute regulates conduct, not protected speech.

The court emphasized the state’s “compelling interest” in shielding minors from exposure to sexualized performances, particularly on public property.

While the panel did not issue a final ruling on every constitutional question raised, it determined that the lower court’s injunction was too broad at this preliminary stage.

The earlier district court ruling had found portions of the law unconstitutionally vague, suggesting performers might self-censor out of fear that ordinary drag performances could be prosecuted. The appellate panel, however, concluded that the statutory definitions were sufficiently grounded in established penal law.

The Plaintiffs’ Arguments

The lawsuit challenging SB 12 was filed by performers and advocacy organizations, including the ACLU of Texas. Plaintiffs argued the statute violates the First Amendment by targeting expressive conduct based on content.

They contended that drag is a form of theatrical and political expression protected under the Constitution, and that the law chills speech by creating ambiguity around what constitutes a violation.

In earlier hearings, plaintiffs asserted that drag brunches, Pride events, and theatrical performances could be swept into the law’s scope even if they contained no explicit sexual activity.

The Fifth Circuit did not definitively resolve those broader First Amendment questions but concluded that the challengers had not met the threshold to justify blocking enforcement statewide.

Paxton’s Response

Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling as validation of Texas’ authority.

In a statement following the decision, Paxton said the court affirmed Texas’ right to protect children from “sexually explicit performances.” His office argued throughout the litigation that the statute mirrors restrictions long upheld by courts when applied to adult entertainment establishments.

Paxton’s office has been active in defending a series of social policy measures in federal court, often before the Fifth Circuit, which has become a focal point for constitutional litigation involving Texas law.

What Happens Next

The law is now set to take effect in March 2026 unless further judicial intervention occurs. Plaintiffs may seek rehearing before the full Fifth Circuit or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

In the meantime, venue owners and performers must evaluate their programming in light of the statutory language. Legal analysts note that enforcement will likely hinge on factual determinations about the content of specific performances.

For prosecutors, the burden will be to demonstrate that a performance involved conduct meeting the precise statutory definitions — not merely gender expression, theatrical exaggeration, or cross-dressing.

COLONY RIDGE, TX – In a $68 million settlement announced by the U.S. Department of Justice, Colony Ridge Land LLC and its affiliated entities agreed to resolve allegations that the developer engaged in predatory land sales and lending practices targeting Hispanic borrowers. The agreement, reached in coordination with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office, concludes litigation initiated in late 2023 and expanded through early 2024.

According to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, the lawsuit accused Colony Ridge of violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act through marketing and lending tactics that allegedly steered vulnerable buyers into high risk seller financed loans without verifying their ability to repay. Investigators said the result was a pattern of defaults, foreclosures, and financial distress across the rapidly expanding Liberty County development.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon stated the government viewed the conduct as both unlawful and socially harmful, asserting that deceptive lending schemes undermine civil rights protections while destabilizing communities. Dhillon also noted enforcement efforts would extend to lenders and developers whose practices may contribute to illegal immigration or unsafe housing conditions.

The settlement resolves a December 2023 federal lawsuit filed jointly by the Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, alongside a March 2024 lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Under the terms of the agreement, Colony Ridge must allocate $48 million toward infrastructure upgrades, including $18 million dedicated to drainage improvements intended to mitigate flooding risks that residents and investigators say have caused costly property damage. An additional $30 million will fund broader infrastructure enhancements throughout the development.

The developer also agreed to adopt underwriting standards requiring verification of borrower income, assets, and debt levels before issuing loans, a shift designed to reduce default risk. The settlement further mandates foreclosure mitigation policies, borrower assistance programs, and a credit remediation plan addressing past reporting tied to defaulted loans.

Investigators also cited concerns involving marketing practices. As part of the settlement, Colony Ridge must ensure advertising accurately represents property conditions, utility access, and loan terms. Pre sale disclosures must now clearly indicate whether homes are move in ready and whether essential services are immediately available.

A legal settlement involving the State of Texas, the federal government, and Colony Ridge will also require prospective buyers to verify lawful presence in the United States. According to reporting from Yahoo News, purchasers must present a valid Texas-issued identification card or driver’s license, or appropriate immigration documentation such as a passport accompanied by a current visa, before completing certain transactions.

Another significant provision includes a $20 million commitment aimed at strengthening law enforcement presence within the development. The agreement requires Colony Ridge to coordinate with local, state, and federal authorities to enhance public safety efforts as the community continues to grow.

Additionally, the settlement imposes documentation requirements tied to federal land sales exemptions and halts new residential plats for direct to consumer sales for three years, effectively slowing the rapid expansion that drew national scrutiny.

Colony Ridge has not admitted wrongdoing as part of the settlement, a common feature in civil resolutions. The company has previously stated that it provides affordable homeownership opportunities to buyers who may struggle to access traditional financing, while emphasizing its cooperation with regulators.

The development has been the subject of intense political and media attention due to its size, unconventional financing model, infrastructure concerns, and questions surrounding population growth patterns in the region.

Sources: U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announcement, Justice.gov; Texas Office of the Attorney General filings; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case records.

FATE, TX – In the weeks after a citizen-led recall petition was filed against Fate Councilwoman Codi Chinn, the political fight moved from City Hall into a police case file.

A criminal complaint obtained through an open records request shows the Fate Police Department opened Case #2026-00000216 listing Chinn as a suspect in an investigation under Texas Penal Code §42.074(b) — Unlawful Disclosure of Address or Telephone Number. The report classifies the alleged offense as having occurred in “Cyberspace” and notes the offender was suspected of using a computer. The case status is listed as Open / Ready for Review, and no charges have been filed as of publication.

The report identifies multiple Fate residents as victims — whose names we have redacted. The remaining redactions, which includes addresses of the victims as shown on the documents below, were made by the City of Fate.

[Pages of complaint against Fate Councilwoman Codi Chinn received via Open Records Request. Pipkins Reports has provided an additional redaction to the victims names.]

What triggered the complaint

According to the complainants, after the recall petition was formally submitted to the City of Fate, the document — which included the names and home addresses of the recall committee members — was distributed by the city manager to all members of the city council, including Chinn. The citizens allege that Chinn later posted images of the unredacted petition pages on Facebook, thereby displaying the names and residential addresses of those responsible for initiating the recall.

Some of the petition committee members then filed a criminal complaint, asserting the disclosure exposed them to potential harassment and intimidation. The police report reflects that allegation by citing the specific statute related to unlawful disclosure of personal information.

A public statement of fear

During Fate City Council meetings on February 2, 2026 and the following week on February 9, 2026, some individuals spoke during the public comment period and stated, on the record, that they believe the disclosure has placed both themselves and their family in danger. One person spoke about how their children were harassed and frightened. She even spoke about how her children have taken to carry nerf guns … in case something happened to daddy and they needed to protect mommy.

The law at the center of the case

Texas Penal Code §42.074 — Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Information

Texas law makes it a criminal offense to post on a publicly accessible website, or distribute electronically, the home address or telephone number of an individual with intent to cause harm or threaten harm.

• Classified as a Class B misdemeanor
• Elevated to Class A if bodily injury results
• Contains an exemption for public servants only when releasing information as part of their official duties in accordance with law.

The statute does not prohibit publishing a person’s name or signature. It specifically protects residential address and telephone number. Furthermore, the mere posting of an address, absent intent to harm, does not automatically satisfy the statute.

That distinction is central to the complaint.

Why this is unusual

Recall petitions are public political documents. Names of organizers are not confidential. Addresses, however, are often redacted by municipalities before release in open records responses.

The complainants argue that while the petition itself is public, the manner in which it was posted — unredacted, on social media, without city review — falls outside normal procedure and outside any official city function.

There is also no record indicating that Chinn was designated by the city in any official capacity to disseminate public records or communicate such materials to the public. The City of Fate maintains a Public Information Officer (PIO) role specifically tasked with handling the release of documents and public communications.

The police report does not determine intent. It documents that a complaint was made, identifies a statute, and names a suspect.

What the police document confirms

The report confirms:

• A complaint was filed January 5, 2026
• The alleged incident occurred online
• A specific criminal statute was cited
• Chinn is listed as the suspect
• The listed victims are recall participants
• The case is active and under review

It does not state that a crime occurred. It does not assign motive. It does not announce charges. It establishes that law enforcement considered the allegation serious enough to open a formal case.

The public servant exemption question

A key issue likely to be examined by prosecutors is whether Chinn’s posting of the petition falls under the statutory exemption for public servants acting within their official duties. The exemption applies only when disclosure is required by law or when disclosure is performed as part of an official governmental function.

The complainants contend that Chinn is not the city Public Information Officer (PIO) and is not authorized to post information on behalf of the city. They allege that posting the document to a personal Facebook page, without redaction and without city authorization, does not meet that threshold. They allege that the disclosure functioned as retaliation for initiating the recall.

What happens next

The case status of “Ready for Review” indicates the report has been forwarded for prosecutorial consideration. Whether the matter results in charges will be determined by the Rockwall County District Attorney, Kenda Culpepper, after review of the evidence.

Until then, the matter remains an open investigation.

Why this matters beyond Fate

Texas’ unlawful disclosure statute is increasingly cited in cases involving online publication of personal data. The law was designed to address modern forms of harassment often referred to as “doxxing.”

This case tests how that statute applies when the disclosure occurs in the context of a political dispute between elected officials and citizens.

It raises a novel question:

When does sharing a public document cross into unlawful disclosure?

That answer now sits in a police file.

Documentation

All information in this report is drawn from the Fate Police Department case report obtained through an open records request and social media sources. Home addresses, or potential victims’ names from the petition are not presented here to avoid republishing the information at issue in the investigation.

Pipkins Reports reached out to Councilwoman Chinn for comment before publication and received a call from her attorney, Cody Skipper, with Shook & Gunter Attorney at Law. Skipper’s response was, “Codi Chinn has done nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing unethical. Codi Chinn has done her job as a public servant.“

We also asked Mr. Skipper if he thought that when she posted the petition, if she was acting in an official capacity. He stated, “Every one of these people are acting in an official capacity.”

We have also verified that the Facebook post containing the recall petition with the committee members’ addresses has been removed. It is unclear when the post was removed.