Federal court upholds Florida's ban on children attending drag shows

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter Thursday, August 06, 2026

A federal appellate court has upheld a Florida law making the admission of children into sexually explicit programs such as drag shows a crime, in a case brought by a restaurant chain that hosts drag performances, as LGBT advocacy groups vow to "fight against censorship."

In a decision released Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled en banc, 8-5, that Florida's Protection of Children Act, which imposes punishments on businesses that expose children to sexually explicit programming such as drag shows, does not violate the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The case, HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Governor, was brought by Hamburger Mary's, a bar and restaurant chain that hosts drag shows and had previously held what it called "family friendly" performances open to children on Sundays before ending that practice amid the litigation.

The chain sued the state in 2023, days after Florida enacted the law, and won an injunction from Senior District Judge Gregory Presnell, a Clinton appointee, blocking its enforcement statewide. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to lift that injunction that November, and a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit upheld it in May 2025 on vagueness grounds. The full court then vacated that panel decision and reheard the case en banc in June 2026, with Florida Solicitor General Dave Dewhirst arguing the case on the state's behalf.

Tuesday's ruling reverses the district court's injunction, concluding among other things that the lower court lacked the authority to issue a universal injunction against the law. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the findings of this opinion.

Judge Andrew Brasher, appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump, delivered the opinion of the court. Six judges joined his opinion in full: Trump appointees Elizabeth Branch, Barbara Lagoa and Robert Luck, Chief Judge William Pryor (a George W. Bush appointee), and Judge Gerald Tjoflat (a Gerald Ford appointee).

Two additional Trump appointees, Judges Britt Grant and Kevin Newsom, joined every part of the majority opinion except its section addressing the scope of universal injunctions; Grant wrote separately explaining that the court did not need to resolve that question once it concluded Hamburger Mary's was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional claims.

The five judges who dissented were all appointed by Democrats: Nancy Abudu, Adalberto Jordan, Embry Kidd, Jill Pryor and Robin Rosenbaum. Abudu and Kidd were appointed by former President Joe Biden, while Jordan, Pryor and Rosenbaum were appointed by former President Barack Obama.

“The Act is a straightforward regulation of obscenity,” Brasher wrote. “Preventing children from attending adult live performances obscene for them is rationally related to Florida’s interest in safeguarding the well-being of minors.”

Referring to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Brasher stressed that the “Constitution protects speech, but not obscenity.” Insisting that “the First Amendment has never been treated as absolute,” he explained how the “Supreme Court has recognized that ‘[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.’”

After identifying obscenity as “one such class of unprotected speech,” Brasher declared “it is difficult to imagine any sex-based performance that predominantly appeals to a prurient interest being suitable for a child of any age.”

While the majority opinion concluded that the Protection of Children Act did not violate the Constitution, one of the dissenting opinions derided the law as a “Titanic-sized iceberg of chilling power against protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment” and “unconstitutionally vague” in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier called the ruling a "huge victory." "After 3 years of litigation, the full court affirmed the constitutionality of Florida's ban on children attending sexualized drag shows," Uthmeier wrote on X. "Great work by Solicitor General Dave Dewhirst, who argued the case on the state's behalf!"

“The ruling by the full court of appeals reinforces the longstanding principles that children should be protected from obscenity,” said Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver in a statement reacting to the ruling. “The appeals court rightly ruled that states have a compelling interest in protecting children from obscene content and doing so fits squarely within constitutional boundaries.”

According to Staver, “Exposing children to lewd adult performances is not protected by the First Amendment, and Florida’s ‘Protection of Children Act’ rightfully shields children from that obscenity. This decision shows that child-protection measures grounded in established obscenity doctrine do not infringe on the First Amendment’s free speech protections.”

The LGBT advocacy group Equality Florida reacted to Tuesday’s decision in a Facebook post declaring, “Let’s be clear: the law is just as constitutionally flawed today as it was last week.”

According to Equality Florida, “Drag is *still* not banned in Florida and never has been.” 

“Drag artists persist. Our fight against censorship continues. And in the meantime…tip your drag performers generously,” Equality Florida added.

Florida becomes the fifth state to actively bar minors from adult live performances of this kind, joining Arkansas, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.