Supreme Court Blocks Florida Law Limiting Drag Shows, Citing First Amendment Concerns

Washington, D.C. – In a decision handed down on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s injunction against a Florida law aimed at restricting drag shows, a move that is seen as a win for LGBTQ+ First Amendment advocates.

US Supreme Court Justices
US Supreme Court Justices. Photo: US Supreme Court

The Contested Law

The “Protection of Children Act,” championed by Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, was introduced in 2023. The law was aimed at preventing the admission of children to “sexually explicit adult live performances,” a category under which many drag shows could fall. The law makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly admit a child to such events.

Journey Through the Courts

After its enactment, the law was quickly challenged. In June, a Florida district court judge issued an injunction against the law, determining that it probably breached the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech and due process, and further noting the law’s lack of clear definition. Following this, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Florida’s urgent request to suspend the district court’s injunction, prompting the state to seek intervention from the Supreme Court. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this injunction, which led to Florida’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court declined to lift the lower court’s injunction, effectively keeping the law unenforceable statewide. While conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch were in favor of enforcing the law, the majority found the First Amendment issues too significant to ignore.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday ensures that state officials are barred from implementing the law until the ongoing legal dispute is fully resolved. While the case may eventually return to the high court, it is expected to take several months for the lower courts to complete their examination of the law and process any related appeals.

Hamburger Mary’s: The Central Challenger

At the heart of this legal battle is Hamburger Mary’s, a popular Orlando-based restaurant known for its drag brunches. The establishment, which has long marketed itself as a family restaurant, argued that the new legislation resulted in a significant loss of business.

According to the company’s website, Hamburger Mary’s has fourteen independently owned franchises across the US. In addition to Orlando, the chain has three more in Florida, including Clearwater, Ft. Lauderdale, and Jacksonville. The website suggests contacting each restaurant individually to determine age limitations, suggesting a large degree of control by each location in the chain’s themes. The company’s origins were in the SoMa district of San Francisco.

Hamburger Mary's
The Orlando, Florida Restaurant advertises itself as “Family Friendly” Photo: Hamburger Mary’s Orlando Website.

Governor DeSantis, a figure in the 2024 Republican presidential race, has touted the law as a stand for children’s protection in an increasingly complex cultural landscape. However, the law’s critics, including Hamburger Mary’s legal team, argue that it unfairly targets the LGBTQ community and restricts freedom of expression.

Prior to the law, Hamburger Mary’s drag shows, which included comedy sketches and dancing, were not age-restricted. The law forced the restaurant to impose age restrictions on its performances, leading to a decrease in bookings and an adverse impact on its operations. The temporary block of the law by the district court allowed Hamburger Mary’s to return to its normal operations.

Challenges To The Law Continue

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the fate of the law as a whole remains in legal limbo. The case continues in the lower courts, and it’s anticipated that it might reach the Supreme Court again for a more substantive review.

This ruling sets a significant precedent in the ongoing national debate over freedom of expression, state legislation, and the free speech rights of LGBTQ+ proponents.

Author