Latest news with #SB1438
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court bocks Florida's drag show law over First Amendment concerns
The Brief 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.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Florida Drag Ban Halted By Appellate Court
A ban on minors attending family-friendly drag shows in Florida was halted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Tuesday after judges ruled 2-1 that it violated the First Amendment. The ruling marks a major victory for Hamburger Mary's of Orlando, a restaurant in the Sunshine State that offers food and entertainment, including drag performances — and specifically family-friendly drag shows on Sundays — to its patrons. The restaurant sued in 2023 after the Florida Senate passed SB 1438. The law purported to focus on the 'protection of children' from obscenity by criminally penalizing businesses that permitted a child into an 'adult live performance.' Anyone found in violation of the law would be charged with a misdemeanor. SB 1438 did not mention drag shows or drag in particular. However, it defined 'adult live performances' as any presentation that 'in whole or in part' depicted things like nudity or sexuality — including 'lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts when it predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful or morbid interest.' Judge Robin Rosenbaum said Florida lawmakers had essentially applied a non-legal, 'non-definition' of obscenity made popular by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964. Potter famously said his threshold to test obscenity was simply that he would 'know it when I see it.' 'Many know Justice Stewart's quip. But it's not, in fact, the law,' Rosenbaum wrote Tuesday, adding that SB 1438's approach to regulating expression 'wields a shotgun when the First Amendment allows a scalpel at most.' Hamburger Mary's said that it lost 20% of its bookings after the ban went into effect. The restaurant shuttered its doors in downtown Orlando in 2024, complaining of lowered foot traffic in the area, and announced plans to relocate to nearby Kissimmee. The state claimed the restaurant's move meant the lawsuit should be nixed altogether, but the appellate court found that SB 1438 still infringed upon the rights of Hamburger Mary's, regardless of where within the state it planned to move. Florida already has obscenity laws meant to protect minors, and the court found Tuesday that the prohibitions laid out in SB 1438 didn't add an extra layer of protection for kids. The court also said Florida officials didn't meaningfully distinguish how 'lewd' and 'sexual' content may or can be separated. These officials appear to be particularly miffed by a drag queen known as Jimbo, Rosenbaum noted in the opinion. Jimbo, who has appeared on 'RuPaul's Drag Race,' is known for highly eccentric performances set to music with costuming that sometimes showcases prosthetic body parts like massive fake breasts beneath deep plunging necklines or bikinis. But that's not what Florida was worried about, the appellate court explained. Added into evidence by the Florida government were photos and video clips from Jimbo's other 'signature acts,' which involved him 'donning Marcel Marceau-like makeup, a prosthetic stomach and backside, and a stretchy, fully body white suit (leaving no skin or prosthetic skin visible other than face,)' Tuesday's order states. 'Jimbo dances and prances onstage, lip-syncing to Björk's cover of Betty Hutton's 1951 song 'Its Oh So Quiet,' before undoing a hidden zipper on the stomach's underside and pulling from within . . . a pile of baloney,' Rosenbaum wrote. 'Perhaps some may consider Jimbo's baloney birth a bit odd (and hammy in every sense of the word).' If Florida state officials thought this was too 'nasty, suggestive, and indecent,' for adults, Rosenbaum noted, that alone raised major questions about what the state would do in response to far tamer drag shows if the injunction was allowed to stand. The sole dissent from Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat claimed that the district court moved too swiftly when it first put an injunction on SB 1438. He also argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had historically upheld laws that emphasized the government's 'special interest in protecting children from exposure to otherwise protected speech.' But neither Florida nor Tjoflat were able to explain what exactly they meant when describing restrictions for so-called 'lewd conduct': Tjoflat suggested 'lewd conduct' was meant to cover depictions of the 'known unknowns' and other 'exotic' materials. 'In other words, the legislature and the dissent would know it when it sees it,' Rosenbaum wrote. If Florida seeks to challenge the ruling, the next stop would be the U.S. Supreme Court. The Future Of A Popular Art Form Could Be In Trump Judges' Hands Federal Judge Says Texas A&M Can Host Drag Show
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal appellate court OKs injunction on 2023 law banning children at drag shows
Rep. Randy Fine introduces HB 1423, the companion to SB 1438, while several drag queens sit behind him. Credit: Screenshot/Florida Channel A federal appellate court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling blocking enforcement of a 2023 Florida law designed to protect children from drag shows. Writing for a 2-1 majority, Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum upheld the statewide injunction, opining that laws that restrict free speech 'demand specificity' but that the underlying law was vague. '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,' she wrote. '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.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Hamburger Mary's was an Orlando restaurant and bar that hosted drag shows including 'family friendly' performances to which children were invited. Its parent company filed the underlying lawsuit against the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis from enforcing the law. The business closed its Orlando location in June and is seeking to reopen in Kissimmee. The 2023 law threatened fines, loss of operating licenses, and criminal penalties against any venues that expose any 'child' to 'lewd' performances, even if the child has parental consent. Hamburger Mary's argued it had to engage in self-censorship and consequently was losing business despite 15 years of trouble-free performances. Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat issued a lengthy dissenting opinion. 'In litigation generally, and in constitutional litigation most prominently, courts in the United States characteristically pause to ask: Is this conflict really necessary?' he wrote. 'Here, the Majority fails to ask this question and, by skipping it, puts the First Amendment on a collision course with core principles of federalism and judicial restraint. Because this conflict was entirely avoidable, I respectfully dissent.' Tjoflat took aim at the appellate court for its earlier ruling, in October 2023, upholding what he described as a 'sweeping injunction' that prevented 'yet another run-of-the-mill obscenity statute' from taking effect. 'On appeal of the injunction, we had two good options: we could apply ordinary tools of statutory construction to read the statute narrowly and avoid unnecessary constitutional conflict, or we could certify the unsettled state-law questions to the Florida Supreme Court, allowing the state's highest court to speak first,' he wrote. ' … Instead, the Majority chooses a third, unwarranted path: it reads the statute in the broadest possible way, maximizes constitutional conflict, and strikes the law down wholesale.' The state asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunction while it appealed the underlying merits of Hamburger Mary's challenge. In a November 2023 6-3 ruling the Supreme Court refused, with justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
