The Florida law that limits drag shows in the state will remain blocked, the Supreme Court said Thursday, dealing a blow to a key initiative championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Florida had asked the high court to narrow a lower courts injunction that stopped the law from being enforced statewide. The justices declined to do so.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.
In a brief statement agreeing with the courts decision, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, joined in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, addressed the First Amendment complexities of the case and said the case was an imperfect vehicle for deciding some of the questions at the center of the dispute.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody argued that the law dubbed the Protection of Children Act was designed to prevent the exposure of children to sexually explicit live performances.
The 2023 law makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly admit a child to a sexually explicit adult live performance that would be obscene for the the age of the child present.
A district court judge in Florida blocked the law in June, holding it likely violated the Constitutions free speech and due process protections and that it was unconstitutionally vague. The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined Floridas emergency application for a stay of the district courts injunction, triggering the states ask to the Supreme Court for relief.
The high courts order Thursday means that state officials cannot enforce the law at all before the legal challenge to it is resolved. The case could reach the justices again, but it will likely be months before the lower courts finish their review of the law and any accompanying appeals.
While we are disappointed in this particular ruling, the Supreme Court did not opine on the merits of our law protecting children from sexualized adult live performances, DeSantis press secretary Jeremy Redfern said in a statement. This case is still pending appeal at the 11th Circuit, and we expect this law to be upheld on the merits.
The law was originally challenged by a popular Orlando restaurant Hamburger Marys that hosts drag brunches and claimed that the new legislation resulted in a loss of business.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.I am dazed with shock.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.
DeSantis is such a clown. Instead of doing his job and trying to work on Florida's problems, he spend his time campaigning and fighting bullshit culture wars.
Drunk Kav and Crazy Amy siding with the woke left. Sad!
What reasoning, constitutionally, did Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch come up with?
reasoning
"If the founding fathers had wanted protections for drag queens...Ah yes, back in the days of the Founding Fathers ... an era when no self-respecting man would have sat for a portrait unless he was wearing a long blonde wig.
Ah yes, back in the days of the Founding Fathers ... an era when no self-respecting man would have sat for a portrait unless he was wearing a long blonde wig.
That's his personal definition of "doing his job".
What reasoning, constitutionally, did Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch come up with?
Sounds like they want it come back with different wording so they can use wiggle room to selectively enforce the decision. They want a way that drag shows can be banned but not "wholesome christian entertainment" that could be applied the same way.
In a brief statement agreeing with the courts decision, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, joined in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, addressed the First Amendment complexities of the case and said the case was an imperfect vehicle for deciding some of the questions at the center of the dispute.
that's his GOP constituents definition of doing his job. They elected him in.
Things that makes his GoP constituents happy, such as winning culture wars are more important to them than things that actually improve their life in physical tangible ways.
The 2023 law makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly admit a child to a sexually explicit adult live performance that would be obscene for the the age of the child present.
And of course, what they mean by "sexually explicit" is, "a guy was on stage in a dress and a wig."Yeah, that can't be overstated. They think drag is inherently adult and overtly sexual. Honestly, women should be afraid to be around any men who find makeup and women's clothes so sexually explicit.
Yeah, that can't be overstated. They think drag is inherently adult and overtly sexual. Honestly, women should be afraid to be around any men who find makeup and women's clothes so sexually explicit.
And of course, what they mean by "sexually explicit" is, "a guy was on stage in a dress and a wig."
Things that makes his GoP constituents happy, such as winning culture wars are more important to them than things that actually improve their life in physical tangible ways.An unhealthy obsession with inconsequential trivia as if it was a matter of life and death, combined with a wilful ignorance and utter disregard of shit that's actually important, is an infallible sign of a complete moron.
And of course, what they mean by "sexually explicit" is, "a guy was on stage in a dress and a wig."Couldnt that bit of wording also end up being used for anyone taking their kid to Hooters since theyre not waitresses, theyre hired as actresses and technically making it a performance?