In what appears to be a trend, the 5th Circuit Court has once again placed a law into immediate effect despite it having already been ruled unconstitutional by a district court. This move came without any explanation as to why the appeals court would disregard the detailed reasoning provided by the district court judges arguing the law’s unconstitutionality. The aforementioned law regards mandatory “health warnings” and age verification on adult content websites.
The judge handling the case, Alan Albright, strongly opposed the law and presented a thorough critique of its constitutional violations. Albright is no stranger to controversy, as he is notorious for inviting patent trolls to argue their cases in his court, thus accounting for nearly a quarter of all patent cases in the United States.
The latest law to cause controversy is HB 900, stipulating that public school libraries must censor materials that might expose children to the existence of gay and trans individuals. Chris Geidner’s highlights from LawDork elaborate on Judge Albright’s stance that this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment, with its focus on prior restraint.
The Overview of the Prior Restraint Doctrine in the Texas Law Review explains that “administrative stays” in the 5th Circuit are meant to temporarily maintain “status quo” allowing the court to be fully briefed before making a decision. However, the 5th Circuit seems to leverage them oppositely, in that it prematurely enables laws already deemed unconstitutional to take immediate effect, with the promise to review details at a later date.