NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A federal judge says Tennessee’s first law designed to put strict limits on drag shows is unconstitutional.
In a 70-page ruling issued Friday night, U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker wrote that the law was “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad.” He also added that the statute encouraged “discriminatory enforcement.”
“There is no doubt that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. But there is a difference between material that is ‘obscene’ in the popular language and material that is ‘obscene’ under the law,” Parker said. who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. “Simply put, no Supreme Court majority has held that sexually explicit, but not obscene, speech receives less protection than political, artistic, or scientific speech.”
I WILL SEE: Drag performers on what Tennessee’s ban on public performances means to them
The Memphis-based Friends of George’s filed the complaint in March, saying the law would negatively affect them because they produce “drag-focused performances, comedy sketches and plays” without age restrictions.
The complaint initially listed Republican Gov. Bill Lee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Shelby County District Attorney Steven Mulroy as defendants, but the plaintiffs later agreed to remove the governor and top legal official, although Skrmetti continued to represent Mulroy on this case.
A spokesman for both Skrmetti and Mulroy did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Parker’s sentencing.
The Republican-dominated Tennessee Legislature advanced the anti-drag law earlier this year, with several GOP members pointing to drag performances in their hometowns as reasons why it was necessary to restrict that these performances were done in public or where children could see them.
However, the word “drag” does not appear in the statute. Instead, lawmakers changed the definition of adult cabaret in Tennessee to mean “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors.” Additionally, “male or female impersonators” were classified as a form of adult cabaret, similar to strippers and topless, go-go, and exotic dancers.
The law would have prohibited adult cabaret performances on public property or anywhere minors might be present. Performers who broke the law risked being charged with a misdemeanor or repeat offense.
Lee quickly signed the statute and it was scheduled to take effect on April 1. However, until now, the law has never been enforced because Parker sided with the group that filed the lawsuit challenging the statute in March and temporarily blocked the law.
“The word ‘drag’ never appears in the text of the (law). But the Court cannot escape that “dragging” was the only common thread in the three specific examples of conduct deemed “harmful to minors” in the legislative transcript, Parker wrote.
Parker used an example of a female performer who wore an Elvis Presley costume and impersonated an iconic musician could be at risk of being punished under the drag law because she would be considered a “male impersonator.”
According to the complaint, Republican state Rep. Chris Todd and Republican state Sen. Ed Jackson helped lead an effort last year to block a drag show at a park in Jackson, west of Nashville, as part of of a Pride festival. Todd later confirmed that he had not seen the performance, but nevertheless took legal action to stop the show. Eventually, the organizers reached an agreement to hold the event indoors with an age restriction.
This incident, along with other Republican lawmakers who cited their objections to drag shows in their hometowns, were used as examples by Parker as reasons why the anti-drag law was “college-oriented.” place potential blocks at drag shows, regardless of the potential harm to minors.”
“Whether some of us like it or not, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as protecting indecent but not obscene speech,” the judge wrote.
Tennessee’s drag law is the second major proposal targeting LGBTQ+ people passed by state lawmakers this year. Lee signed GOP-backed legislation banning most gender-affirming treatments, which is being challenged in court.
