Federal appeals court bocks Florida's drag show law over First Amendment concerns
A federal court upheld an injunction against a 2023 Florida law targeting children's attendance at drag shows, calling it overly broad and vague.
Judges ruled the law violated the First Amendment by failing to define prohibited conduct clearly.
The case stemmed from a suit by Hamburger Mary's, a venue known for family-friendly drag events.
What we know
ORLANDO, Fla. - A federal appeals court has upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida's 2023 law that aimed to prevent children from attending drag performances.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Hamburger Mary's, an Orlando-area venue that challenged the law on First Amendment grounds. The court determined the law, known as Senate Bill 1438, is "substantially overbroad" and violates constitutional free speech protections by lacking specificity in its restrictions.
What we don't know
The future of the law remains uncertain, as it could be subject to further legal challenges or appeals to higher courts. Additionally, it is unclear whether the state legislature will attempt to revise the law's language or whether the Florida Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on the interpretation of ambiguous terms like "lewd conduct." Judge Gerald Tjoflat, the dissenting voice in the ruling, urged that course of action instead of invalidating the law outright.
The backstory
SB 1438, dubbed the "Protection of Children" bill by its Republican sponsors, was part of a broader wave of legislation in Florida and other states targeting drag shows and transgender-related issues. Though it does not explicitly mention drag performances, the law emerged after Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration took enforcement action against venues that hosted drag shows attended by children. Hamburger Mary's, known for its family-friendly drag events, filed a lawsuit arguing that the law posed an existential threat to its operations.
What they're saying
Tuesday's majority opinion said that "by providing only vague guidance as to which performances it prohibits, the act (the law) wields a shotgun when the First Amendment allows a scalpel at most."
"The Constitution demands specificity when the state restricts speech," said the 81-page majority opinion, written by Judge Robin Rosenbaum and joined by Judge Nancy Abudu. "Requiring clarity in speech regulations shields us from the whims of government censors. And the need for clarity is especially strong when the government takes the legally potent step of labeling speech 'obscene.' An 'I know it when I see it' test would unconstitutionally empower those who would limit speech to arbitrarily enforce the law. But the First Amendment empowers speakers instead. Yet Florida's Senate Bill 1438 (the law) takes an 'I know it when I see it' approach to regulating expression."
But Judge Gerald Tjoflat, in a 45-page dissent, said the majority "reads the statute in the broadest possible way, maximizes constitutional conflict and strikes the law down wholesale." He argued that the federal court should have sent the case to the Florida Supreme Court for help in interpreting the law — a step known as "certifying" a question to the state court.
"Instead, the majority sidesteps the very tools our system provides — tools designed to respect state authority, foster comity, and avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings," Tjoflat wrote. "By casting aside those safeguards, today's decision stretches this court beyond its proper role and departs from the humility and restraint that federal courts owe when state law is in question."
The law, dubbed by sponsors the "Protection of Children" bill, sought to prevent venues from admitting children to adult live performances.
What's next
Hamburger Mary's was located in Orlando at the time it filed the lawsuit but later announced plans to move to Kissimmee. An opening date has not yet been finalized.
STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 35 ORLANDO:
Download the FOX Local app for breaking news alerts, the latest news headlines
Download the FOX 35 Storm Team Weather app for weather alerts & radar
Sign up for FOX 35's daily newsletter for the latest morning headlines
FOX Local:Stream FOX 35 newscasts, FOX 35 News+, Central Florida Eats on your smart TV
The Source
This story was written based on information shared by The News Service of Florida.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Noblesville school didn't violate anti-abortion student's rights, court finds
The Seventh Circuit court has upheld that Noblesville High School leaders did not violate a student's rights when they suspended her anti-abortion rights club for not following school policy. In 2022, a student and her parents sued the district, claiming a dispute over posting flyers violated their daughter's First Amendment and Equal Access Act rights. They argue that the decision to veto her flyers and suspend the club was "driven by hostility to her pro-life views." The school maintained it was not discriminating against her beliefs and was instead upholding its policy that student clubs' wall postings remain content-neutral. "The record shows that school officials approved (the student's) club, reasonably accommodated her speech, and suspended the club only for neutral, conduct-related reasons," Judge Nancy Maldonado wrote in the Aug. 14 ruling. Marnie Cooke, a spokesperson for Noblesville Schools, said in a statement that the district was appreciative of the ruling. She said the school supports their students in "forming clubs they're passionate about," which span "a wide range of a wide range of interests, activities, and beliefs." Jordan Butler, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, was critical of the court decision in a statement, saying it "undermines the First Amendment — an amendment that protects all speech, including pro-life voices." 'I Am the Pro-Life Generation' In 2021, a student gained permission to start a chapter of Students for Life of America at Noblesville High School. The goal of the group's campus clubs is to "change minds of their peers" and advocate for public policy, according to the national organization's website. To advertise the first meeting, the student submitted flyers to school officials for approval. She pulled them from a template the national organization dispersed, which includes blanks to fill in with meeting details and photos of students holding signs saying 'Defund Planned Parenthood' and 'I Am the Pro-Life Generation." According to court filings, school administrators repeatedly told the student to revise the flyer to solely include meeting information. They asked her to omit the photos to comply with the school's content-neutral rule for wall postings. After the student's mother, Lisa Duell, met with leaders to urge the flyer's approval, the school became concerned the club was not entirely student-run, according to court documents. Principal Craig McCaffrey then suspended the chapter as an approved student club after an "attempt at insubordination led by an outside adult advocating with the student.' He said the student could reapply in January 2022. She did, and the club was reinstated. The school and the student reached an agreement to allow the club to continue operating while the lawsuit moved through the courts. Judges: No First Amendment violation In March 2024, Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of the school district, saying there was no constitutional injury as a result of a policy or decision. Students for Life previously alleged that Barker had a bias in favor of abortion rights in a failed attempt to have her removed from the case. President Ronald Reagan appointed Barker. After the case was appealed to the Seventh District, Judges Frank Easterbrook, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi and Maldonado heard arguments in October 2024. Easterbrook was appointed by Reagan, and the latter two by Joe Biden. In the court's Aug. 14 ruling, they agreed with Barker, writing that the policy and its enforcement do not violate the First Amendment. Schools generally can limit speech that could be construed as their own, which the court said includes the limited public forum that is its walls. It also found that, based on the handling of other political student clubs, the school did not treat the student's club any differently. "The District could reasonably conclude that covering its walls with warring political messages would undermine that order and divert attention from the business of learning," Maldonado wrote. "It passes constitutional muster." The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Have a story to tell? Reach Cate Charron by email at ccharron@ on X at @CateCharron or Signal at @ This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Noblesville High didn't violate anti-abortion student's rights: Court Solve the daily Crossword
Indianapolis Star
15 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Noblesville school didn't violate anti-abortion student's rights, court finds
The Seventh Circuit court has upheld that Noblesville High School leaders did not violate a student's rights when they suspended her anti-abortion rights club for not following school policy. In 2022, a student and her parents sued the district, claiming a dispute over posting flyers violated their daughter's First Amendment and Equal Access Act rights. They argue that the decision to veto her flyers and suspend the club was "driven by hostility to her pro-life views." The school maintained it was not discriminating against her beliefs and was instead upholding its policy that student clubs' wall postings remain content-neutral. "The record shows that school officials approved (the student's) club, reasonably accommodated her speech, and suspended the club only for neutral, conduct-related reasons," Judge Nancy Maldonado wrote in the Aug. 14 ruling. Marnie Cooke, a spokesperson for Noblesville Schools, said in a statement that the district was appreciative of the ruling. She said the school supports their students in "forming clubs they're passionate about," which span "a wide range of a wide range of interests, activities, and beliefs." Jordan Butler, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, was critical of the court decision in a statement, saying it "undermines the First Amendment — an amendment that protects all speech, including pro-life voices." In 2021, a student gained permission to start a chapter of Students for Life of America at Noblesville High School. The goal of the group's campus clubs is to "change minds of their peers" and advocate for public policy, according to the national organization's website. To advertise the first meeting, the student submitted flyers to school officials for approval. She pulled them from a template the national organization dispersed, which includes blanks to fill in with meeting details and photos of students holding signs saying 'Defund Planned Parenthood' and 'I Am the Pro-Life Generation." According to court filings, school administrators repeatedly told the student to revise the flyer to solely include meeting information. They asked her to omit the photos to comply with the school's content-neutral rule for wall postings. After the student's mother, Lisa Duell, met with leaders to urge the flyer's approval, the school became concerned the club was not entirely student-run, according to court documents. Principal Craig McCaffrey then suspended the chapter as an approved student club after an "attempt at insubordination led by an outside adult advocating with the student.' He said the student could reapply in January 2022. She did, and the club was reinstated. The school and the student reached an agreement to allow the club to continue operating while the lawsuit moved through the courts. In March 2024, Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of the school district, saying there was no constitutional injury as a result of a policy or decision. Students for Life previously alleged that Barker had a bias in favor of abortion rights in a failed attempt to have her removed from the case. President Ronald Reagan appointed Barker. After the case was appealed to the Seventh District, Judges Frank Easterbrook, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi and Maldonado heard arguments in October 2024. Easterbrook was appointed by Reagan, and the latter two by Joe Biden. In the court's Aug. 14 ruling, they agreed with Barker, writing that the policy and its enforcement do not violate the First Amendment. Schools generally can limit speech that could be construed as their own, which the court said includes the limited public forum that is its walls. It also found that, based on the handling of other political student clubs, the school did not treat the student's club any differently. "The District could reasonably conclude that covering its walls with warring political messages would undermine that order and divert attention from the business of learning," Maldonado wrote. "It passes constitutional muster." The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Bill 180 targets 'home rule,' limits building back stronger after hurricanes
A new hurricane recovery law limits the ability of local Florida governments to control development, even when they're not directly impacted by a storm. Senate Bill 180 is dubbed the 'Emergencies' act, but it has broad implications for development, conservation and storm resiliency. The bill was intended, in part, to support homeowners recovering after disasters by reducing permitting requirements. The law prevents counties, cities and towns from limiting growth in a way that might be seen as 'burdensome or restrictive," and it allows residents and developers to sue local governments if they feel inhibited by growth restrictions, according to the bill. This provision has already played out in many communities around the state, including Stuart, which voted to pause most development last December so it could restructure its zoning codes. SB 180 reversed those changes. 'Totally handcuffing local government leaders from addressing local land use and planning needs is egregious and undermines local government efficacy at its roots,' Stuart Mayor Cambell Rich wrote in a May 14 letter to the governor. What is Senate Bill 180? State lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved SB 180, with a single dissenting vote in the Florida House. It went into effect July 1. 'After a storm, Floridians need a clear path to recovery,' the bill's sponsor, Sen. Nick DiCeglie, R-St. Petersburg, said May 2 on the House floor. 'We're fighting for families to focus on rebuilding without additional delays or burdens, especially for those who sustained damage or lost their homes.' However, groups such as The Republican Liberty Caucus decry the bill as 'an attack on Home Rule and local democracy,' and conservationists worry the law prevents communities from building back stronger after hurricanes. One provision prevents local governments from limiting development for a year if a hurricane struck within 100 miles. Another restricts cities and counties from requiring structures to be rebuilt up to flood code if they were severely damaged by multiple natural disasters over time. If a building is damaged up to 50% of its fair market value from a single storm, it must be rebuilt up to code. Under SB 180, if 50% of the structure is damaged from multiple storms over a few years, it doesn't. That would mean a home flooded by Hurricane Ian in 2022 and again by Hurricane Debby in 2024 may not be required to rebuild stronger. 'Governments are responding to what their constituents are asking them to do, which is to help them rebuild after storms so they don't flood again,' said Kim Dinkins, policy and planning director of 1000 Friends of Florida, a nonprofit conservation thinktank. Among its many provisions, SB 180 also: Increases disaster management planning Enhances emergency resource coordination Promotes financial transparency Limits local governments from requiring structures be rebuilt up to code Allows residents and developers to sue local governments over growth restrictions Senate Bill 180 affects hurricane preparedness The 2024 hurricane season devastated many parts of Florida with a trio of hurricanes: Debby, Helene and Milton. Their combined storm surge and intense winds left the entire state under a disaster declaration, with most counties needing individual or public recovery assistance for at least one storm. The Treasure Coast was battered by record tornadoes spurred by Milton, especially in the Spanish Lakes neighborhood. Many buildings not up to code or in flood plains were damaged or destroyed during the storms. However, SB 180 allows some homeowners to rebuild to previous standards without accounting for modern flood codes, such as elevating the building. This has already played out in In Volusia County, where Deltona was issued a pre-suit notice by developers who objected to the city's restrictions on growth as it addressed flooding issues lingering after Hurricane Milton. 'SB 180 hamstrings local governments just as we're seeing more frequent and intense hurricanes and tornadoes,' Dinkins said. Florida law affects controlled growth Orange County spent eight years planning to limit suburban sprawl, conserve undisturbed rural lands and promote affordable housing and walkable areas. The comprehensive plan, titled Vision 2050, was touted as a blueprint for a 'smarter, more sustainable future' by the county. Then, the Florida Department of Commerce sent a letter to the county stating the plan was 'null and void' under SB 180. Multiple counties, including Manatee, Pinellas and Pasco, plan to present at the Florida Association of Counties conference in September to challenge the 'more burdensome or restrictive' amendments in SB 180. 'By undermining local authority, SB 180 puts Floridians at greater risk from flooding, pollution, and unchecked sprawl,' said 1000 Friends of Florida president Paul Owens in a news release. 'We urge lawmakers to act swiftly to repeal these harmful provisions in 2026.' Jack Lemnus is a TCPalm enterprise reporter. Contact him at 772-409-1345, or follow him on X @JackLemnus. This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: 'Attack on home rule': Florida SB 180 law limits local growth planning Solve the daily Crossword
