The efforts of Florida to temporarily enforce a misdemeanor law against children attending drag performances was denied by a divided Supreme Court in recent proceedings. The consequence of this brief unsigned order is such that the state of Florida is currently unable to enforce the law while a Florida restaurant’s challenge against it continues.
The legislation in question, branded as the Protection of Children Act, was signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023. According to the act, admitting a child to an adult live performance—which encompasses any performance involving “the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts”—is deemed a misdemeanor. The Act, however, has been widely recognized as attempting to specifically target drag shows.
Regarding the details of the law,, Hamburger Mary’s—an Orlando-based restaurant chain known for hosting drag show performances, which notably encompass “family friendly” shows—filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutional validity of the new legislation, arguing its violation of the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell ruled in favor of the restaurant, barring Florida officials from enforcing the law statewide on the grounds that it violated both the First Amendment and the due process clause of law.
This ruling set the stage for the case to reach the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, who refused to delay Presnell’s order pending Florida’s appeal. Following this refusal by the Court of Appeals, the state took its case to the Supreme Court on Oct. 19, requesting the justices to allow the enforcement of the law during the appeal process.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the stance of the previous rulings, refusing to grant Florida’s request. Three Supreme Court justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—indicated their willingness to grant the state’s request, but did not provide any justification for their position.
In response to the court’s decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh—joined in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett—stressed that the court had correctly rejected the state’s request, primarily based on the unlikelihood that they would review the case at this stage of proceedings.
More updates on this ongoing legal matter and the wider implications it may hold can be found in original reports, such as this one posted on SCOTUSblog.