Southern Utah Drag Stars v. City of St. George, 677 F.Supp.3d 1252

Southern Utah Drag Stars (Drag Stars) and performer Mitski Avalōx applied for a special-event permit to hold a family-friendly "Allies Drag Show" in a St. George public park; the City denied the permit for "advertising" before final permit issuance and then imposed a 6‑month moratorium on new special-event applications.
City Code §§ 3-10-3 and 3-10-4(c) prohibit promoting or advertising a special event before permit issuance; the City had never enforced that advertising prohibition before March 2023.
After complaints about the drag event, City staff investigated pending applicants and found many had "advertised." The City subsequently exempted most identified violators (recurring or "City-sponsored" events) and amended the ordinance to allow retroactive exemptions.
Drag Stars’ permit was abruptly denied (based on a vendor-platform post), its administrative appeal to the City Council was denied, and Drag Stars sued in federal court alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
The court found the advertising prohibition and moratorium to be vague, overbroad, and (as applied) unconstitutional prior restraints and discriminatory in enforcement; it granted a mandatory preliminary injunction ordering the City to reverse the denial, issue a permit for June 30, 2023 (Sunbowl or JC Snow per plaintiffs’ election), and enjoining enforcement of the advertising rules and moratorium as to plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / Mootness	Denial injured speech; court relief would redress	No prior app for June 30; relief moot	Standing exists; case not moot; relief may include new date
Advertising prohibition — Overbreadth / Vagueness	Undefined "advertise/promote" chills broad protected speech; deters organizers	Protects public order, avoids promoter losses	Likely unconstitutional as overbroad and void for vagueness
Advertising prohibition — Prior restraint / Viewpoint discrimination	Absolute advertising ban is prior restraint; enforcement targeted drag speech	Content-neutral safety/children protection interest	Prior restraint unconstitutional; evidence shows discriminatory, pretextual enforcement
Moratorium — Overbreadth / Prior restraint	City-wide six-month ban on all new public-event permits overly broad and unnecessary	Needed to study park use and craft regulations	Likely unconstitutional as overbroad/prior restraint as applied to plaintiffs
Remedy / Mandatory injunction	Reverse denial and order issuance for June 30 event	Mandatory injunction is extraordinary and alters status quo	Court granted mandatory injunction: reverse denial, issue permit for June 30, enjoin enforcement as to plaintiffs

Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (discusses constitutional protections for press and speech)
Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (prior restraints bear a heavy presumption against validity)
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (licensing schemes must avoid undue delay; time limits required)
Forsyth Cnty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (permits and fees that permit unfettered official discretion are invalid)
Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Loc. Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (public‑forum analysis)
Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (government interest in protecting children has limits; nonobscene speech remains protected)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (establishes obscenity standard)