Jackson official, LGBTQ group respond to Supreme Court denial of TN drag law case
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition to hear a case concerning Tennessee's Adult Entertainment Act, upholding its constitutionality.
Passed in 2023, House Bill 9 makes it an offense to host "adult-oriented entertainment," like cabaret performances and drag shows, in public spaces where minors could potentially view them.
Supporters of the legislation say it ensures the protection of children from sexually explicit performances, while opponents, such as in the case of Friends of George's v. Mulroy, argue it violates free speech.
Per Monday's decision, the case will not be heard by the Supreme Court.
More: First Jackson drag show held since state's limiting legislation
More: Music, festivity, and drag shows: Jackson TN Pride events return for fifth year
More: Tennessee legislators try to halt Jackson Pride drag show, raising First Amendment concerns
FOG filed an injunction on Mar. 27, 2023, shortly after Gov. Bill Lee signed HB9 into law, pushing back on the constitutionality of the legislation's encroachment on free speech.
FOG, an LGBTQ+ theatre company in Memphis, has featured "drag-centric" entertainment since 2011. The troupe also works to raise money for organizations and charities that support the LGBTQ+ community.
A district court ruled in favor of FOG and prohibited the legislation from being enforced in Shelby County.
The case, which names Shelby County District Attorney Steven Mulroy as the respondent, was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where it was dismissed on July 18, 2024.
On Dec. 19, 2024, Mulroy filed a petition for the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision. That petition was denied on Monday and upholds Tennessee's HB9.
In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the theatre company posted on its website that "this ruling does not define us."
"Friends of George's Theatre Company will continue exercising our First Amendment right to bring joyful, LGBTQ+ inclusive art into our community while raising thousands for charities that uphold dignity and respect for all," the post said. "We extend our deepest gratitude to our legal team for their valiant effort in representing us over the past two years. We are forever grateful for their advocacy, dedication and unwavering belief in our constitutional right to free expression."
In 2022, Jackson was at the forefront of the conversation concerning the parameters of adult entertainment.
Controversy concerning a drag show deemed "family friendly" was the diving board for the introduction of the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison County.
Todd, along with other local legislators, spearheaded the campaign to legally object to the drag show, scheduled to be hosted at the Carl Perkins Civic Center.
Jackson Pride, a local grassroots group striving to promote inclusivity and support among the LGBTQ+ community, organized the event.
Originally set to be held in Conger Park, the event was quickly contested by local pastor and legislator outrage, and thus, prompting its relocation to the Civic Center with an age requirement.
The annual drag performance has since returned to the Civic Center with no pushback, drawing a large crowd, and is restricted to those above the age of 18.
Following the Supreme Court decision, Todd shared the following statement on Wednesday.
'I'm grateful to the United States Supreme Court for allowing the Sixth Circuit's ruling to stand, a major victory for morality and basic protections for children,' Todd said. 'Tennessee will continue to be a passionate advocate for families by supporting parental rights and protecting the innocence of minors. I continue to be proud of our state and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti as we fight for common sense in our nation.'
Though Jackson Pride declined to comment on the Supreme Court decision, a representative from the organization said "we don't host adult entertainment for minors."
Sarah Best is a reporter for The Jackson Sun. To support local journalism, subscribe to the Daily Briefing here.
This article originally appeared on Jackson Sun: Jackson official, Pride group react to Supreme Court drag case denial
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein found guilty of sex crime at retrial in New York, acquitted on one charge
Disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty of committing a sex crime by a jury in New York, more than a year after the state Supreme Court overturned his 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges. A jury of seven women and five men returned a partial verdict on Wednesday, finding Weinstein guilty of a first-degree criminal sexual act. The jury acquitted him on a second count of first-degree criminal sexual act, and it did not reach a unanimous verdict on a count of third-degree rape. Jurors will continue to deliberate on the third-degree rape count on Thursday, NBC News reported. This time around, the charges stemmed from allegations that Weinstein raped aspiring actor Jessica Mann in 2013 and that he forcibly performed oral sex on two others, former 'Project Runway' production assistant Miriam Haley and former model Kaja Sokola in 2006. Sokola's accusation was not included in Weinstein's first trial. The jury on Wednesday found him guilty of committing a criminal sex act against Haley; it found him not guilty on the charge related to Sokola; and it will continue to deliberate on the rape charge as it relates to Mann. Weinstein has maintained that all of the sexual encounters were consensual. He did not testify in this trial or during his 2020 trial. Weinstein's conviction comes more than five years after he was convicted of felony sex crimes at his first Manhattan trial, which was a watershed moment for the #MeToo movement. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Then, in early 2023, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison after being convicted of sex crimes in Los Angeles. He was ordered to serve those sentences consecutively, essentially ensuring that the once-powerful entertainment mogul, now 73, would spend the rest of his life in prison. But his New York conviction was overturned by the state's high court in April 2024, after the justices determined in a 4-3 ruling that he did not get a fair trial. Almost immediately after, Manhattan prosecutors said that they would seek a retrial. Since then, Weinstein has been languishing in New York City's notorious Rikers Island jail, with his attorneys saying that the facility's conditions have exacerbated his health issues. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'
Legal experts say Blake Lively has scored a key legal win against Justin Baldoni. A New York judge dismissed Baldoni's defamation case against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and the NYT. Still, one expert told BI it's not "game over" for Baldoni since "the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." Blake Lively just scored a major win in her ongoing legal battle with "It Ends With Us" director-costar Justin Baldoni, but the court fight isn't over yet. Legal experts told Business Insider the dismissal of Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is an important win for Lively and her team, especially in a case where reputation is more at stake than money. "Even though it was a New York judge, the judge applied California law, and that's important because California is one of the most First Amendment-friendly states in the country," Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and cofounder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told BI. Although the case was filed in New York, California laws apply because the events in question took place in the state. "The fact that the vast majority of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, which means that they can't be refiled, is a huge setback for Baldoni," Rahmani added. On Monday, a New York judge dismissed Baldoni's $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times. Baldoni argued that the parties conspired to destroy his career with false allegations after Lively filed a federal lawsuit against Baldoni, which accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation. In her complaint, Lively said that Baldoni and the producers of "It Ends With Us" orchestrated a smear campaign against her after she raised concerns about on-set conditions during the film's production. Baldoni has denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to BI that the lawsuit dismissal is "a total victory and a complete vindication" of the actor. "As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," said the spokesperson, who added that Lively plans to seek attorneys' fees, treble damages, and punitive damages from Baldoni and his associates. US District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Lively's sexual harassment allegations in her lawsuit are legally protected speech. The judge also ruled Baldoni's allegations that Lively engaged in an extortion campaign to seize creative control of "It Ends With Us" from Baldoni did not qualify as civil extortion under California law. Liman says Baldoni can refile an amended suit against Lively regarding his contract breach and interference allegations. Baldoni has until June 23 to file that amended complaint. Baldoni's camp would not confirm to BI whether they would refile, but a statement from his attorney, Bryan Freedman, suggested that the director has plans to do just that. "Ms. Lively and her team's predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling. While the Court dismissed the defamation-related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations," Freedman said. Freedman added, "Most importantly, Ms. Lively's own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle and look forward to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking." Camron Dowlatshahi of MSD Lawyers, who specializes in sexual harassment cases, told BI that the judge's dismissal is still a major victory for Lively at a very early stage of the case. "Baldoni can amend his complaint to properly allege a cause of action for defamation," said Dowlatshahi. "His amended complaint will likely face another motion to dismiss and cannot manufacture facts, so it remains to be seen whether Baldoni can get to the discovery stage of his case." Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni is still pending and could proceed to trial. Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist and partner at Withers, told BI there may be some hope left for Baldoni if he targets Lively's statements made outside her complaint, which may be less protected. "Libel litigation can be akin to spinning the roulette wheel or sitting down to a game of chance," said Melville-Brown. "So while Baldoni may have lost in this latest hand, it doesn't mean all bets are off. It's not necessarily game over because the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." "That said, and I'm not a gambler myself. If he didn't play his strongest cards at the outset, it's not easy to see that he's going to come up with a winning hand second time around," Melville-Brown added. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business Insider
A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'
Blake Lively just scored a major win in her ongoing legal battle with " It Ends With Us" director-costar Justin Baldoni, but the court fight isn't over yet. Legal experts told Business Insider the dismissal of Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is an important win for Lively and her team, especially in a case where reputation is more at stake than money. "Even though it was a New York judge, the judge applied California law, and that's important because California is one of the most First Amendment-friendly states in the country," Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and cofounder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told BI. Although the case was filed in New York, California laws apply because the events in question took place in the state. "The fact that the vast majority of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, which means that they can't be refiled, is a huge setback for Baldoni," Rahmani added. On Monday, a New York judge dismissed Baldoni's $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times. Baldoni argued that the parties conspired to destroy his career with false allegations after Lively filed a federal lawsuit against Baldoni, which accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation. In her complaint, Lively said that Baldoni and the producers of " It Ends With Us" orchestrated a smear campaign against her after she raised concerns about on-set conditions during the film's production. Baldoni has denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to BI that the lawsuit dismissal is "a total victory and a complete vindication" of the actor. "As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," said the spokesperson, who added that Lively plans to seek attorneys' fees, treble damages, and punitive damages from Baldoni and his associates. Why Baldoni's suit was dismissed US District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Lively's sexual harassment allegations in her lawsuit are legally protected speech. The judge also ruled Baldoni's allegations that Lively engaged in an extortion campaign to seize creative control of "It Ends With Us" from Baldoni did not qualify as civil extortion under California law. Liman says Baldoni can refile an amended suit against Lively regarding his contract breach and interference allegations. Baldoni has until June 23 to file that amended complaint. Baldoni's camp would not confirm to BI whether they would refile, but a statement from his attorney, Bryan Freedman, suggested that the director has plans to do just that. "Ms. Lively and her team's predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling. While the Court dismissed the defamation-related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations," Freedman said. Freedman added, "Most importantly, Ms. Lively's own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle and look forward to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking." Camron Dowlatshahi of MSD Lawyers, who specializes in sexual harassment cases, told BI that the judge's dismissal is still a major victory for Lively at a very early stage of the case. "Baldoni can amend his complaint to properly allege a cause of action for defamation," said Dowlatshahi. "His amended complaint will likely face another motion to dismiss and cannot manufacture facts, so it remains to be seen whether Baldoni can get to the discovery stage of his case." Liman is weighing whether to dismiss Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni or let it proceed to trial. Baldoni's fight isn't over, an expert says Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist and partner at Withers, told BI there may be some hope left for Baldoni if he targets Lively's statements made outside her complaint, which may be less protected. "Libel litigation can be akin to spinning the roulette wheel or sitting down to a game of chance," said Melville-Brown. "So while Baldoni may have lost in this latest hand, it doesn't mean all bets are off. It's not necessarily game over because the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." "That said, and I'm not a gambler myself. If he didn't play his strongest cards at the outset, it's not easy to see that he's going to come up with a winning hand second time around," Melville-Brown added.
