In the latest development concerning Florida's controversial law aimed at drag shows, a federal appeals court has upheld a block on the legislation, signaling a real victory for First Amendment advocates. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, through a 2-1 decision, voted to support the preliminary injunction set by a lower court against the law, which Florida officials have defended as a measure to protect children. The ruling, detailed by WESH, indicates that the law is likely unconstitutional because of its broad and vague language.
Representing Hamburger Mary's, the drag-themed restaurant at the heart of this legal battle, attorney Melissa Stewart expressed relief, stating that, "The Court's opinion recognizes this law for what it is – an egregiously unconstitutional attempt to censor the speech and expression of citizens." She successfully argued before the panel that the bill, hidden under the guise of protecting children, was an overreach of power. However, the Florida governor's office spokesperson Brian Wright countered, according to WESH, saying "No one has a constitutional right to perform sexual routines in front of little kids," and vowing to fight back against what they view as a "lawless decision."
On the legislative front, Governor Ron DeSantis and supporters have pushed for what they deemed as safeguards against adult-themed performances, taking particular aim at drag shows with Senate Bill 1438, as noted by Orlando Weekly. This law sought to penalize venues allowing children to witness live performances classified as adult, including those depicting or simulating nudity, sexual conduct, or lewd exposure, among other things.
However, the 11th Circuit Court majority opinion, penned by Judge Robin Rosenbaum, highlighted the problematic nature of the law, arguing 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." This standpoint underscores the vital need for precision in speech regulation to prevent undue censorship, as it risks indirectly limiting access to constitutionally protected speech. Meanwhile, dissenting Judge Gerald Tjoflat suggested, according to Orlando Weekly, that the majority has maximized constitutional conflict by not interpreting the law in good faith, leading to an unnecessary striking down of the statute.
