Latest news with #SenateBill1438
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
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ron DeSantis' anti-drag law in Florida loses in court (yes, again)
Ahead of his ill-fated presidential campaign, Gov. Ron DeSantis invested quite a bit of time expressing his contempt for drag shows, so it didn't come as much of a surprise a couple of years ago when the Florida Republican signed a measure empowering the state to penalize businesses that allow minors to attend drag performances. Soon after, a federal court blocked the state from enforcing the anti-drag law, concluding that Florida already had laws against obscene performances. 'Rather, this statute is specifically designed to suppress the speech of drag queen performers,' U.S. District Court Judge Gregory A. Presnell wrote. DeSantis denounced the injunction as 'dead wrong' and vowed to appeal. As the Miami-area NBC affiliate reported, that hasn't turned out well for the governor. Describing the law as 'substantially overbroad,' a federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a preliminary injunction blocking a 2023 Florida law aimed at preventing children from attending drag shows. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, backed the Central Florida venue Hamburger Mary's in a First Amendment challenge to the law. The 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,' Judges Robin Rosenbaum and Nancy Abudu explained. '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.' Time will tell whether DeSantis bothers to take his chances with yet another appeal, but let's not forget that the governor already tried once to get the U.S. Supreme Court to undo the district court's injunction. That didn't work, even if Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch publicly dissented at the time. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal Appeals Court rules against ‘Drag Show' law
Describing the law as 'substantially overbroad,' a federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a preliminary injunction blocking a 2023 Florida law aimed at preventing children from attending drag shows. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, backed the Central Florida venue Hamburger Mary's in a First Amendment challenge to the law. The state appealed in 2023 after U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell issued a preliminary injunction. 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. It defines adult live performances as 'any show, exhibition, or other presentation that is performed in front of a live audience, which, in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or specific sexual activities, … lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.' It would allow regulators to suspend or revoke licenses of restaurants, bars and other venues that violate the law. Also, it would prohibit local governments from issuing public permits for events that could expose children to the targeted behavior. While the law does not specifically mention drag shows, it came after Gov. Ron DeSantis'administration cracked down on venues in South Florida and Central Florida where children attended drag shows. It also came amid a series of controversial laws passed by Republicans in Florida and other states about transgender-related issues. Tuesday's majority opinion focused, in part, on the use of the words 'lewd conduct' in the law. It said the term is overbroad and that Rosenbaum and Abudu 'understand the act's prohibition on depictions of lewd conduct to reach speech that is constitutionally protected, even as to minors.' 'The result is that venues like Hamburger Mary's are prone to restrict minors from consuming speech that they are within their constitutional rights to access,' the majority opinion said. 'Not only that, but the act's sweep risks indirectly squelching adults' access to nonobscene speech.' Tjoflat, however, wrote that the law's 'enumeration of terms is not perfectly sorted by specificity, but its ordering still lends credence to the idea that 'lewd conduct' was intended merely as a catchall phrase, rather than a significant expansion of the statute's scope.' 'Simply put, the question before us is not whether (the law) is stylishly and elegantly written,' Tjoflat wrote. 'The question is whether the statute violates the Constitution, and our review requires us to engage with the statutory text, as written, in good faith and with the presumption that the Legislature did not intend to infringe on constitutional rights. By applying the aforementioned principles and reading the statute harmoniously, we can and should conclude that the statute reaches only speech that would be considered obscene (under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent).' Hamburger Mary's was located in Orlando at the time it filed the lawsuit but later announced plans to move to Kissimmee. It said in 2023 that it had run 'family friendly' drag shows for 15 years. Tuesday's majority opinion said the fact that Hamburger Mary's left the Orlando location after filing the challenge did not make the lawsuit moot. It said in 'cases involving businesses that pause operations but may resume them, courts take a common-sense approach to evaluating mootness.' Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
