Blount Pride, Inc. v. Desmond
Overview
Overview
A First Amendment fight over whether a Tennessee prosecutor's 2023 threat to enforce the state's Adult Entertainment Act against a drag event can still be challenged in court. A federal judge dismissed the case in 2025 for lack of standing, reasoning that no prosecution was imminent, and the plaintiffs have appealed. On October 22, 2026 the Sixth Circuit heard argument on whether to revive the suit.
The Facts
The Facts
In 2023, shortly before the Blount Pride festival, Blount County District Attorney General Ryan Desmond sent a letter warning that drag performances could violate Tennessee's Adult Entertainment Act. Blount Pride, Inc. and performer Matthew Lovegood, known as Flamy Grant, sued Desmond and Maryville Police Chief Tony Crisp. An earlier preliminary injunction against the Act dissolved after the Sixth Circuit's 2024 ruling in Friends of George's, Inc. v. Mulroy. The plaintiffs later amended their complaint to drop the facial challenge to the Act and instead claim that the officials unconstitutionally threatened prosecution to chill protected drag speech. No new enforcement attempt has been made against them since the 2023 letter.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the plaintiffs have standing to seek forward-looking relief against enforcement of the Adult Entertainment Act when no prosecution has been attempted since the 2023 letter, and whether the Sixth Circuit should reinstate the dismissed case.
The Rules
Rule
To have standing to seek an injunction, a plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of future injury, not merely a past harm. A certainly impending threat of prosecution can supply that injury, but speculation that enforcement might occur generally cannot. Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages unless they violated clearly established law. The Sixth Circuit held in Friends of George's, Inc. v. Mulroy that the Adult Entertainment Act reaches only performances lacking serious artistic, political, or scientific value for a reasonable 17-year-old, and that family-friendly drag performances are protected by the First Amendment.
The Application
Analysis
Judge Greer dismissed the suit for lack of standing, finding no certainly impending threat of prosecution under Friends of George's, and ruled in the alternative that Desmond was entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue the injury is ongoing because the officials have not disavowed enforcement and recent pride events had to relocate out of fear of interference, which they call compelled self-censorship. The district attorney's office counters that there have been no new enforcement attempts and no imminent injury, and that a state need not disavow a law it is not enforcing. At argument, Judge Thapar pressed what remained to enjoin, given that the Sixth Circuit has already clarified the law and the plaintiffs say they will not violate it.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Sixth Circuit heard argument on October 22, 2026 and has not ruled. If the court agrees the plaintiffs lack standing, the dismissal stands. If it finds a live, ongoing injury, it could send the case back to the district court to develop the facts. Whether the plaintiffs can show a continuing threat, rather than a single 2023 letter, is the question the panel must resolve.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support