The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding whether or not a drag show ought to be allowed at a public university in Texas. 

The Associated Press reports that the justices, on Friday, "rejected an emergency appeal that has been blocked from staging a drag show at" the public university.

Somewhat surprisingly, none of the justices took issue with the decision to reject the appeal.

What makes this surprising, of course, is that one would at least expect a dissenting opinion from the liberal justices. But, it did not happen.

What's the case about?

The case stems from a situation that took place at West Texas A&M University, which is a public university.

There, a student group wanted to be able to put on a charity drag show - but the school has put a ban on such drag performances.

USA Today reports:

The school's president cancelled last year's show as part, he said, of his responsibility to "foster a healthy campus culture and effective educational environment." College President Walter Wendler said drag shows “stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood.”

Currently, there is a big legal battle about whether the student group ought to be allowed to put on the drag show. The student group filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to allow them to be able to put on the drag show while this litigation plays out.

But, the Supreme Court has refused to get involved.

Liberal justices go missing

This is the exact sort of case that one would expect the liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to want to get involved in. But, as mentioned, they didn't.

Newsweek reports, "There were no dissenting votes noted in the Supreme Court order and there was no explanation given for the justices' decision."

The big question is: "Why the silence from the liberals?"

Newsweek goes on to report:

When asked by a user on X, formerly Twitter, why no liberal justices dissented this decision, Mark Joseph Stern, a senior write at Slate, commented: "The standard for issuing an injunction pending appeal is extremely demanding, and it makes strategic sense for the left-leaning justices to resist granting one even in borderline cases to discourage their colleagues from tossing them out like candy."

If true, then this would suggest that the liberal justices' silence was a strategic decision.