Woodfill is known for his socially conservative views and activism, including his opposition to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, which was repealed in a 2015 referendum.

[2][3] Woodfill represented Pressler in a suit alleging inappropriate sexual conduct; the case settled in 2004 for $450,000.

[4] In 2023, Woodfill gave a deposition in the suit; he acknowledged that he was told in 2004 that Pressler had sexually abused a minor.

[4] Woodfill's sworn statement in the deposition in 2023 contradicted his previous claims, since at least 2016, that he had no knowledge of sexual misconduct by Pressler targeting boys and young men.

[3] Separately, in September 2018, the State Bar of Texas publicly reprimanded Woodfill,[5][6] and ordered him to pay $3,490 in fees and expenses.

[5] However, District Attorney Kim Ogg abruptly dropped the case, bringing no charges against Woodfill.

[15] During the campaign, Woodfill and Steven Hotze likened gay people to Nazis and pushed the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory.

[18] In 2015, after Texas Republican Party chairman Steve Munisteri stepped down, Woodfill unsuccessfully sought to fill the vacancy.

[19] In secret balloting among 62 party officials in March 2015, Tom Mechler of Amarillo, an oil and gas consultant, decisively won on the second ballot, defeating Dallas County Republican Party chair Wade Emmert by one vote; Woodfill came in third place, and Republican National Committeeman Robin Armstrong in last place.

[24][25] Woodfill also represented Republican officials and activists (including Hotze, Texas Republican Party chair Allen West, and Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller) in an attempt to block Governor Greg Abbott's extension of the early voting period.

[26] Both measures were adopted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Postal Service crisis, and were aimed at increasing voter turnout.

[28] Woodfill's lawsuit was dismissed; in rejecting the suit, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes wrote that the plaintiffs' claim that the COVID-19 vaccines were "experimental and dangerous" was false and irrelevant and that the plaintiffs' comparison of the hospital's vaccine requirement to Nazi human experimentation during the Holocaust was "reprehensible.