The ACLU of Tennessee is asking a federal appeals court to bring Blount Pride’s First Amendment fight back to life, urging the Sixth Circuit to overturn a judge’s decision that tossed the case last fall. At the heart of the appeal is a simple but loaded question: when local officials publicly warn you that you could be prosecuted, is that enough to silence speech protected by the Constitution?
In a brief filed Thursday, ACLU attorneys argued that Blount Pride and drag performer Flamy Grant faced an unlawful threat when Blount County District Attorney Ryan Desmond and Maryville Police Chief Tony Crisp warned they might use Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act to pursue criminal charges, according to WBIR. ACLU-TN staff attorney Zee Scout told the station that “we must ensure that Tennesseans have the freedom to express all speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
Judge Dismissed the Suit Last Fall
U.S. District Judge J. Ronnie Greer dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint with prejudice on Oct. 24, 2025, finding that Blount Pride and its co-plaintiffs lacked standing and that some of their claims were blocked by immunity doctrines. The memorandum and order detailing that ruling are posted on Justia.
How the Dispute Began
The lawsuit traces back to an Aug. 29, 2023, letter from Desmond warning that Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act could apply to the planned Blount Pride festival. The ACLU filed suit the next day and secured a temporary restraining order that allowed the 2023 event to go forward. Background materials, filings, and early press releases are available on the ACLU of Tennessee website.
Appeal Moves to the Sixth Circuit
The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as No. 25-6072. Court records show the parties have set a briefing schedule, with the appellants’ filings due this week and responses from the appellees to come afterward. The docket and submitted documents can be viewed on Justia Dockets.
Why It Matters
The outcome could shape how far prosecutors and police can go when they publicly warn organizers about potential violations of state law. The Sixth Circuit will be weighing whether such warnings amount to a constitutionally recognized “chilling” of speech and how much protection officials have when they make those statements. That tension has already produced mixed rulings across Tennessee and factored into Judge Greer’s reasoning in dismissing the case, as detailed by TNPOLITICO.
