In a recent split decision, the US Supreme Court issued a brief statement refusing to reinstate a Florida law targeted at drag shows. The law had been earlier prohibited from coming into effect by a lower court, and with the Supreme Court refusing to intervene in the decision, the law will remain inactive across the state.
The case being contested, Griffen v. HM Florida-ORL, LLC, involved Hamburger Mary’s, an Orlando-based restaurant that hosts frequent drag shows. The eatery challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s Protection of Children Act, which Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law in May. This act directly impacted drag shows by barring minors from attending ‘adult live performances’. Offenders would be charged with a misdemeanor.
Hamburger Mary’s successfully argued that the law caused a loss in business by preventing children from attending their drag shows. Furthermore, it was argued that the law ran contrary to the First Amendment of the US Constitution and that its narrative was too vague to be implemented effectively.
In response, the district court blocked the Protection of Children Act with a preliminary injunction set to be officially reviewed in a trial scheduled for June 2024. When Florida appealed the preliminary injunction to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, they refused to overturn it, leading to this latest decision by the Supreme Court.
While the decision to not reinstate the ban was unsigned, there was a clear split in the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch indicated a willingness to grant Florida’s application for stay, which would have allowed for the act to be enforced state-wide while the litigation was ongoing.
Contrarily, in agreement with the court’s decision but dissenting in their reasoning, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett argued that the refusal was issued because the court is unlikely to take up this case at the current stage of proceedings. Kavanaugh and Barrett seemed to disagree with Florida’s reasons for appealing the lower court’s ruling. Although the case appeared in court as a First Amendment challenge, the justices suggested the crux lied in whether a district court can prevent a government from enforcing a law against non-participants in the litigation.
As legal professionals analyze the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision, this case continues to raise critical questions regarding First Amendment rights, enforcement of state laws, and the potential overreach of court-issued injunctions. Read more.