Friends of George's, Inc. v. Steven Mulroy, 108 F.4th 431

The case concerns the constitutionality of Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act (AEA), which prohibits adult cabaret entertainment in public or where minors can be present.
"Friends of George’s" (FOG), a Memphis-based theater organization that produces drag performances, challenged the law as facially unconstitutional, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights.
FOG does not restrict minors from attending its shows, and its performances sometimes include sexual innuendo, satire, and skits involving male or female impersonators.
The district court found for FOG, declared the AEA unconstitutional, and enjoined the Shelby County District Attorney (Mulroy) from enforcing it.
The State (Mulroy) appealed, arguing that FOG lacked standing and the law was constitutional.
The Sixth Circuit majority reversed the district court, holding FOG lacked Article III standing to challenge the AEA, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FOG’s Article III Standing	FOG faces credible threat of prosecution; productions arguably covered by statute; causes actual chill	FOG’s shows not criminalized by AEA; no history of prosecution; FOG’s shows have artistic value for minors	FOG lacks standing; no pre-enforcement injury shown
Definition/Application of "Harmful to Minors"	Statute is overbroad/vague; applies to content not truly obscene; harms expressive rights	Properly incorporates existing obscenity definitions; applies only to content lacking value for 17-year-olds	AEA’s definition is narrowly construed via prior TN Supreme Court decisions
First Amendment Challenge	AEA is a content-based speech restriction, cannot withstand strict scrutiny	Law is narrowly tailored to protect minors; longstanding authority to regulate such content	Court did not reach merits (majority); dissent found law unconstitutional
Scope of Injunctive Relief	Entire law should be enjoined to avoid chilling protected speech	Relief, if any, should be limited; FOG not entitled to challenge provisions not affecting it	Reversed injunction; standing not established

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (sets forth the three-part obscenity test for unprotected speech)
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (approves state adaptation of obscenity test for minors)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (redeeming value must be judged by the work as a whole for First Amendment analyses)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (pre-enforcement challenges to laws; standing analysis)
United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (content-based restrictions on protected speech must survive strict scrutiny)
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (challenge to Communications Decency Act under First Amendment; strict scrutiny)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (expressive conduct is protected by First Amendment)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (content-based regulation of speech and exceptions)