Jeffrey Younger received a massive victory on Thursday when a judge reversed a jury's decision giving his ex-wife, Dr. Anne Georgulas, sole custody of their sons, James and Jude. Younger contends that Georgulas is forcing a gender transition onto James.
In the ruling, Judge Kim Cooks granted the parents joint custody of the children. She also hit both parents with a gag order, meaning neither will be able to speak about the case publicly.
According to legal experts, the gag order against Younger is "clearly unconstitutional."
"This is an outrageous decision by the court that clearly is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. It is obvious with the court order that the judge has made some serious mistakes because this is fairly straightforward that you can't gag a father from talking about his son to the media," Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, told LifeSiteNews.
Similarly, Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, told LifeSiteNews the gag order was an "overreaction" — and that it also underscores the importance of media in this case.
"The issuance of a gag order is clearly an overreaction in this case particularly since this case was going to be decided by a judge and not a jury, but it is also an indication that Jeff Younger realized he had to do everything he could to get his message out [because] up until this point the system had not worked the way it should," Saenz said.
Georgulas' attorneys reportedly told the court that Younger's media interaction put the children at risk. However, Younger said that he only spoke to certain media outlets and that he did not initiate contact with reporters.
After the court ruling on Thursday, Younger spoke to the media for the last time. You can view his interview with LifeSiteNews here:
EXCLUSIVE: Dad fighting gender 'transition' of 7-yr-old son speaks out right before gag orderwww.youtube.com
Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins argued in a court brief before the Texas Supreme Court earlier this month that gag orders are a "substantial infringement on First Amendment rights."
"The gag order is a prior restraint on speech," he argued. "It is plainly overbroad and cannot be squared with the First Amendment's free speech guarantees."