Photo: Kevin Reed

The lawsuit on Tennesseeโ€™s controversial ban on adult entertainment will remain intact after a refusal to hear the case from the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A statement from the Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti saidย the court unanimously decided to โ€œreject a full circuit review of the Friends of Georgeโ€™s, Inc v. Steven Mulroy.โ€

Friends of Georgeโ€™s has not said how this will affect any their productions moving forward, but they only allowed audience members 18 and up to attend their last show in August.

According to the court order filed on September 20th, the court received a petition to hear the case again. All judges in the court received the petition, yet they all declined to review it as a full court.

โ€œNo judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing,โ€ the order said. โ€œTherefore, the petition is denied. Judge [Andre] Mathis would grant rehearing for the reasons stated in is dissent.โ€ 

In July the court reversed the U.S. District Court of the Western Districtโ€™s decision to halt the enforcement of the controversial law. According to Friends of Georgeโ€™s the court decided in a 2-to-1 ruling that they lacked standing, which led to the lawsuit being dismissed.

Judge Mathis wrote in his dissent that part of Tennesseeโ€™s Adult Entertainment Act (AEA) is an โ€œunconstitutional content-based restriction on speech.โ€

โ€œThe freedom to convey oneโ€™s ideas โ€” no matter how unpopular โ€” was seen as inalienable to the human experience, and the Framers of our Federal Constitution believed such freedom was โ€˜essential if vigorous enlightenment was ever to triumph over slothful ignorance,โ€™โ€  Mathis said.

Mathis went on to analyze the language of the Adult Entertainment Act which makes performing โ€œadult cabaret entertainmentโ€ on public property or in a place that a child can view it a crime. These performances are defined as those that feature โ€œtopless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainers.โ€

The dissent went on to say that Friends of Georgeโ€™s has the right to sue since the law could stop them from doing their shows. The Tennessee Attorney Generalโ€™s office argued that the company hasnโ€™t been harmed by the law and canโ€™t sue. However, Mathis argued they donโ€™t have to be in trouble to challenge the law.

Skrmetti said he was glad the Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case as his office โ€œfought hard to defend Tennesseeโ€™s Adult Entertainment Act.โ€

โ€œTennessee, home to an incredible community of performers and songwriters, respects the awesome importance of the First Amendment,โ€ Skrmetti said. โ€œBut the First Amendment allows states to restrict adult entertainment to adult-only spaces.โ€

The law stated that these โ€œadult cabaret performancesโ€ were โ€œharmful to minors.โ€ It made โ€œadult cabaret performancesโ€ on public property or โ€œin a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adultโ€ a criminal offense.

During the hearing, Friends of Georgeโ€™s was required to show that they planned to continue performances and that these productions were protected by the First Amendment. The company showed videos of their past shows which included satire of The View where performers โ€œdescrib[ed] sexual acts including intercourse and masturbation,โ€ and another video showed a group of actors satirizing a song by Meatloaf while portraying sexual acts.

While the First Amendment protects both words and actions, the โ€œexpressive conductโ€ must convey a clear message and be understood by the audience, which Friends of Georgeโ€™s productions do.

Though the district court ruled that the Adult Entertainment Act was unconstitutional as it limited free speech, Mathis argued they made a mistake by saying that the district attorneyโ€™s office couldnโ€™t enforce the public property clause, as the theater group could not challenge that part.