Friends of George's, Inc. v. Steven J. Mulroy, in His Official and Individual Capacity as the District Attorney General of Shelby County, Tennessee

In response to a drag performance at a local pride festival, the Tennessee legislature enacted the Adult Entertainment Act, which criminalizes drag and other performances that are “harmful to minors” and take place in “any location” where the performance “could be viewed” by someone “who is not an adult.” Petitioner is Friends of George’s, Inc. (FOG), a nonprofit organization that produces “drag-centric” performances in Shelby County, Tennessee. After FOG’s First Amendment challenge to the Act, the district court enjoined enforcement of the Act in Shelby County—concluding that the Act impermissibly restricts speech on the basis of its content and viewpoint and was enacted for the purpose of chilling constitutionally protected speech by drag performers. But a divided court of appeals imposed two narrowing constructions on the Tennessee law and held that, as revised by the court of appeals, the Act did not apply to petitioner’s conduct and petitioner hence lacked Article III standing to challenge the Act in federal court. Each narrowing construction, however, contradicted the Act’s text; and no Tennessee court has interpreted the 2023 Act, let alone adopted the narrowing constructions imposed by the court of appeals. The court of appeals instead extended a decades-old Tennessee Supreme Court decision, interpreting a different Tennessee law, in a manner neither dictated nor authorized by the Tennessee Supreme Court. This petition, which seeks summary reversal of the court of appeals’ decision, presents the following question: When evaluating a constitutional challenge to a state statute, may a federal court unilaterally narrow the statute’s scope in a manner that contradicts the statutory text and is neither dictated nor authorized by decisions of the state’s highest court. (I)