Blount Pride, Inc v. Desmond, 690 F.Supp.3d 796

Background

Plaintiffs Blount Pride, Inc. (a 501(c)(3)) and drag performer Matthew Lovegood challenge Tennessee's Adult Entertainment Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-51-1407) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
Blount Pride’s festival (no age restriction) included Lovegood performing in drag; DA Ryan Desmond sent a public notice warning that the event might violate the Act and stating his office would prosecute violations.
The DA’s notice was sent to local law enforcement and the college venue; plaintiffs say the notice chilled speech and pressured the venue.
Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the Act and to prevent officials from interfering with the September 2, 2023 festival.
The district court found plaintiffs had standing, found they were likely to succeed on First Amendment grounds (relying on persuasive authority), found irreparable harm from First Amendment injury, and granted a TRO enjoining enforcement and interference pending further order; a preliminary-injunction hearing was set.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for pre-enforcement challenge	Lovegood intends to perform in drag at the festival and faces a credible threat of prosecution from DA’s warning.	Desmond: plaintiffs did not intend to perform "harmful to minors" material and lack a certain threat of prosecution.	Court: Plaintiffs have standing—DA’s notice, targeting, statute attributes (vagueness/no scienter), and refusal to disavow enforcement create a credible threat.
Likelihood of success: content- or viewpoint-based restriction and vagueness	The Act is content- and viewpoint-based and unconstitutionally vague as applied to drag-centric performances.	Desmond argues Act is constitutional and Friends of Georges (opinion finding it unconstitutional) is erroneous.	Court: Finds strong likelihood of success on the merits, adopts persuasive reasoning of Friends of Georges and related First Amendment precedent.
Irreparable harm	Loss of First Amendment freedoms from threatened enforcement and chilling of speech constitutes irreparable harm.	DA emphasizes state interest in protecting minors.	Court: Irreparable harm shown; First Amendment injury alone suffices.
Public interest / substantial harm to others	TRO preserves constitutional rights and does not foreclose retrospective prosecution if plaintiffs lose on merits.	State asserts compelling interest in protecting minors that TRO would impede.	Court: Public interest favors TRO; prospective harm to State is reduced and retrospective prosecution remains possible.

Key Cases Cited

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1974) (TRO preserves status quo pending adversarial hearing)
Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2007) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2014) (pre-enforcement standing framework)
Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S. Ct. 2106 (U.S. 2023) (First Amendment requires proof of scienter to avoid self-censorship risks)
Crawford v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 868 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2017) (pre-enforcement standing requires intent plus credible threat of enforcement)
Online Merchants Guild v. Cameron, 995 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2021) (factors for credible threat of prosecution in pre-enforcement context)
Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1979) (§ 1983 requires identification of the specific constitutional right alleged)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (U.S. 2020) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (merging of public-interest and harm-to-others factors when government is opposing party)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (state interest in protecting minors in speech regulation)