This BBC World article covers how the artist brought the artwork into the courthouse:

Tuesday started with a large group of women dressed in navy power suits, clad in pearls and wearing red lipstick marching into the hearing to support Ms Kaechele.

As the parties sparred, the museum’s supporters were somewhat stealing the spotlight. They had periods of complete stillness and silence, before moving in some kind of subtle, synchronised dance - crossing their legs and resting their heads on their fists, clutching their hearts, or peering down their spectacles. One even sat there pointedly flipping through feminist texts and making notes.

After (Judge) Grueber reserved his decision for a later date, which is yet to be determined, the museum’s posse left as conspicuously as it came in - dancing out of the building in a conga line as one woman played ‘Simply Irresistible’ by Robert Palmer off her iPhone.

Ms Kaechele has indicated she’ll fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court if needed, but she says - ironically - that perhaps nothing could drive the point of the artwork home more than having to shut it down.

“If you were just looking at it from an aesthetic standpoint, being forced to close would be pretty powerful.”

Also want to cite an interview with the artist:

As the hugely influential gender theorist Judith Butler argues, gender is a performative construct. To which I’d add: so is the legal system.

Interviewer: Do you mean to say that you think the judge might have been contributing to the art?

I can’t be certain that his ruling isn’t performance. His judge-like ‘comportment’ in the court, the flourish of his language in the ruling … He’s clearly a man interested in art. In his ruling, he compares me to Caravaggio—a great artist but he also murdered someone. I just served ladies champagne.