Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Oldham’

Musk Backs Wilco GOP Chair In Tranny Bathroom Wars

Tuesday, December 30th, 2025

Via Holly Hansen in The Texan News comes a culture war skirmish that checks off a lot of this blog’s interest boxes: Williamson County GOP Chair Michelle Evans had her phone seized documenting a man using the women’s restroom, and now she has a powerful ally in the war against transsexual madness.

Social media giant X announced it will provide legal backing to a Texas Republican activist who faces felony prosecution for posting a photo of an alleged biological male in the women’s restroom at the Texas Capitol.

In the midst of a 2023 debate at the Capitol over legislation prohibiting gender modification procedures for minor children, Williamson County Republican Party Chair Michelle Evans posted the photo of a clothed person at a public bathroom sink on X in May 2023 and wrote that she had to tell the “man to stop using the women’s restroom at the Capitol.”

Hours later, police detained Evans and confiscated her phone, and Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza launched a criminal investigation into whether Evans had violated a state law prohibiting taking photographs or videos of individuals in bathrooms or changing rooms.

Although Garza has not indicted Evans, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office (TCDAO) still has possession of her phone.

“I just want my phone back,” Evans told The Texan. “I’m not worried about anything in particular, but I’m not going to give up anytime soon. Garza can continue to investigate me, charge me. But what I can do is make sure that it’s on the record that this was a safety issue for the women that were in that bathroom.”

Remember that Texas finally passed the The Texas Women’s Privacy Act, barring men from women’s bathrooms this year, and the law took effect December 4th. If Evans were to take such a picture today, she would be documenting evidence of a crime.

Garza, of course, is Travis County’s Soros-backed lefty DA, who seems far more interested in defending men in women’s bathrooms than protecting Austinites from criminals.

Evans has maintained that the person in the photograph is a biological male who was in the Capitol to testify on Senate Bill (SB) 14, and she told The Texan that said person had publicly announced as a candidate for Texas House District 64.

Several weeks after the confiscation of her phone, Evans filed a federal lawsuit accusing Garza of violating her free speech rights, but a lower court rejected Evans’ request for an injunction. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split opinion on Evans’ appeal of the case with two justices affirming the lower court’s decision.

The majority noted that Garza had not yet filed charges against Evans and thus the lower court had appropriately applied a legal doctrine that limits federal intervention in state matters, but in his dissent, Justice Andrew Oldham argued that the court had created a “Catch-22” for Evans that would prevent her from seeking an injunction at all, and that the mere threat of criminal charges had already created an injury and inhibited her First Amendment right to free speech.

“Evans has undoubtedly suffered an irreparable injury,” wrote Oldham. “While Garza decides whether to charge Evans, her First Amendment rights hang in ‘limbo.’ She must ‘self-censor’ from further publishing the purportedly illegal photograph.”

In support of Evans’ right to injunctive relief, Oldham asserted that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms from Day 1 is an irreparable injury.”

He also noted that the Texas law prohibited collection of images with the “intent to invade the privacy of a person,” but that Evans’ posted photograph was of a fully clothed person at a sink, not in an “intimate” setting.

“Insofar as we have to guess, it should be obvious that DA Garza will not be able to prove that Evans had the ‘intent to invade the privacy of the other person,’” wrote Oldham.

Evans is now asking for an en banc consideration of her case that would allow all 17 justices of the 5th Circuit Court to weigh in.

She will have additional legal representation provided by X itself.

X owner Elon Musk, a self-described “free-speech absolutist,” purchased the social media platform in 2022, citing many users’ complaints of censored content as one of his motivations.

True, but an even more basic reason for Musk’s intervention is social justice sorts turning his son Xavier trans. This was probably the key moment in which Musk started his journey from vaguely libertarian leftist to a Trump ally.

Evans said she has not communicated with Musk himself but that members of X’s legal team contacted her earlier this month.

X’s Global Government Affairs released a statement Monday morning in support of Evans.

Evans has a strong case on First Amendment ground, but an even stronger case in the court of public opinion, where insisting men can use a women’s restroom just because they’ve declared they’re women remains deeply unpopular. Tranny bathroom mandates were an early sign of just how far Democrats were willing to go to impose radical social justice on the nation under Obama, and have proven widely loathed everywhere they’ve been imposed. When put to a vote in Houston (hardly a deep red city), tranny bathrooms went down in flames.

Bill by bill, lawsuit by lawsuit, the transsexual madness social justice-infected Democrats tried to inflict on America is being rolled back, and women across the across the country can breathe a sign of relief.

Federal Court To Biden: “No, You Can’t Have A National Guard Vax Mandate. Not Yours.”

Thursday, June 15th, 2023

Slowly but surely the relics of governmental overreach in the name of containing Flu Manchu are being rolled back. Texas Governor Greg Abbott finally announced he was letting his three year old emergency declaration lapse. (Are you sure you’re not rushing there, governor?)

Now a federal court has slapped down Biden’s vaccine mandate on the National Guard.

Just hours after Gov. Greg Abbott finally ended the COVID-19 disaster declaration, he announced that he won an appeals case against the Biden administration for attempting to enforce vaccine mandates on the Texas National Guard.

In January 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden to stop him from forcing the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard to get coronavirus vaccinations.

Over a year later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued its ruling that the Constitution and laws of the United States deny Biden the power to punish members of the Texas National Guard if they refused to get injected with the vaccine.

Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham stated in his opinion that he rejects the president’s assertion of power over the members because they were not called into national service.

In this case, President Biden imposed and then repealed a mandate requiring State militiamen to take the COVID-19 vaccine. And now that the President has rescinded the vaccine requirement, he wants to retain the power to punish militia members who refused to get the shots while the mandate was in effect—all without calling them into national service. We reject the President’s assertion of power because it would undermine one of the most important compromises in the Constitution. If the Constitution’s text, history, and tradition make anything clear, it’s that the President can punish members of the Texas militia only after calling them into federal service.

In Paxton’s lawsuit, he argued that neither the president nor federal military officials can force the state’s National Guard to comply with vaccination mandates.

“Neither the President nor federal military officials can order the Governor of Texas and non-federalized National Guardsmen to comply with a vaccination mandate or to direct a particular disciplinary action for failure to comply,” Paxton’s office wrote in a press release. “President Biden is not those troops’ commander-in-chief; Governor Abbott is.”

There seems to be no constitutional limit statists won’t override in their eternal, all-encompassing quest for dominion over others. Eternal vigilance is still the price of freedom.

Fifth Circuit Court Starts Dismantling The Administrative State

Thursday, May 19th, 2022

American Civics 101 teaches us that there are three branches of the American government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. However, that clean, elegant division started to go awry in the early 20th century (some would place the problems even earlier) with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the vast expansion of the administrative state under the New Deal.

One blow to that traditional tripartite division of federal powers was the creation of administrative courts for independent agencies. Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Texas) ruled such courts were unconstitutional.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s in-house judges violate the U.S. Constitution by denying fraud defendants their right to a jury trial and acting without necessary guidance from Congress, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday.

The court ruled 2-1 in favor of hedge fund manager George Jarkesy Jr and investment advisor Patriot28 LLC, overturning an SEC administrative law judge’s determination that they committed securities fraud.

A spokesperson for the SEC and counsel for the petitioners did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

The Dodd-Frank Act, which Congress passed after the 2008 financial crisis, expanded the SEC’s ability to seek penalties in its administrative proceedings.

In the ruling Wednesday, the majority said that because seeking penalties is akin to debt collection, which is a private right, the defendants were entitled to a jury trial.

The SEC had argued that it was acting to protect investors and enforce public rights found in the securities laws.

The majority also found that SEC judges, known as administrative law judges, lack authority under the Constitution because Congress did not provide guidance on when the SEC should bring cases in-house instead of in a court.

U.S. Circuit Court Jennifer Walker Elrod, joined by Circuit Court Judge Andrew Oldham, penned the majority opinion.

This is a long overdue trimming of the unelected administrative state and a restoration of the division of responsibilities between the three branches that forms part of the Constitution’s vital system of checks and balances. However, given the potentially far-reaching effects of the decision, expect first an en banc hearing of the Fifth Circuit, and then an appeal to the Supreme Court.