A federal judge said late Friday that a Tennessee law intended to restrict drag performances was unconstitutional, saying it was too broad and violated the First Amendment.

The ruling is an initial victory for LGBTQ rights advocates after weeks of turmoil and confusion over the language of the law and how it would affect not only drag performers in the state, but also transgender, non-binary and other people. gender non-conforming people. Tennessee, which passed the law this year with the stated goal of protecting children, was among more than a dozen states that have passed measures restricting LGBTQ rights.

Although only Shelby County, where the lawsuit was filed, is explicitly barred from enforcing the law, the decision by Judge Thomas L. Parker of the United States District Court in Memphis sent a clear signal that the statute could affect the enforcement of the law. law and lead to challenges in other parts of Tennessee.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who said he hoped to appeal the decision, maintained that the ruling did not affect the rest of the state. “The Adult Entertainment Law is still in effect outside of Shelby County,” he said. He added that the language of the law “is rooted in First Amendment precedent long established by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Gov. Bill Lee signed the law into law in early March, but it was put on hold after a Memphis theater company, Friends of George’s, challenged it in court and Judge Parker issued a temporary injunction.

Friends of George’s, which frequently puts on productions with transvestite or LGBTQ actors, argued that the law’s wording was vague and threatened their constitutional right to free speech and their income from performances.

The law does not refer explicitly to drag, but it prohibits “adult cabaret,” even by “male or female impersonators,” on public property or anywhere children might see it if the performance meets the state’s definition of “harmful.” for minors”. Violators of the law would be charged with a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses.

During the temporary injunction, the potential impact of the law had sown fear and uncertainty among drag performers and organizers behind a series of Pride Month celebrations to be held across Tennessee. Across the country, drag events and Pride celebrations have faced increased protests and threats as conservative activists have sought to limit events in public or in the presence of children. In Los Angeles on Friday, a fight broke out near an elementary school between parents protesting at a Pride Day assembly and counter-protesters.

Judge Parker’s ruling on Friday came hours before dozens of drag performers and thousands of revelers were expected to celebrate. the Memphis Pride Festival and Parade on Saturday.

In his 70-page ruling, the judge said the law “reeks of constitutional evils of vagueness.” He added that the legislature “carelessly, if not intentionally” enacted the measure “for the improper purpose of freezing constitutional freedom of expression.”

A spokeswoman for Gov. Lee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But aside from Skrmetti’s reaction, at least one Republican lawmaker supported appealing the decision.

“Despite the court’s bewildering reading of the statute, I am confident, and always have been, that this legislation does nothing to strike down the First Amendment,” said Jack Johnson, the majority leader in the State Senate and key sponsor of the legislation, in a statement.

Tennessee Republicans and conservative activists have framed the law as a way to protect children, saying it would not infringe on any performance that was not obscene. Prior to the ruling, the court had also received several letters from people across the state calling for the law to protect children from inappropriate content.

The measure was crafted in part after a state legislator, Rep. Chris Todd, and other community members in Jackson, Tennessee, successfully sued over a drag performance, billed as family entertainment, at a Pride celebration. over there. (Mr. Todd’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)

But critics of the law said its ambiguous language could intensify harassment not only against drag performers, but also against transgender and gender non-conforming people in their daily lives. They also warned that it was ignoring an opportunity for children, especially LGBTQ youth, to learn about self-expression and acceptance.

Regina L. Hillman, an assistant professor of law at the University of Memphis who has challenged laws banning marriage equality in the state, said that while the ruling was not binding outside of Shelby County, “it is certainly very, very persuasive.” .

“The analysis is not limited, with respect to the constitutionality of it,” he added, noting that other challenges are likely to arise in other parts of the state citing Judge Parker’s findings. If there were an appeal, he said, that ruling could also result in a broader statewide decision.

Judge Parker recognized what he described as a “compelling state interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors.” But he pointed to comments by Mr. Todd and other lawmakers during debate and testimony in the state Legislature earlier this year as evidence that the law was “aimed at blocking potential drag performances, regardless of their potential harm to minors”.

The judge also noted that cross-dressing, although not specifically mentioned in the law, served as “the only common thread” in the examples of conduct described as harmful to minors.

With a nod to Elvis Presley, one of Tennessee’s most impersonated singers, the judge outlined a scenario in which a woman performing in an Elvis costume was far more likely to face legal punishment than a man and questioned whether an impersonator of Elvis of any genre would be fully protected by law.

The law, he said, “targets the point of view of gender identity.”

Judge Parker also questioned the decision to use the phrase “male or female impersonators”. Referring to the lawmakers’ decision to lump those people together with exotic dancers, topless dancers and strippers, he said that while “doing so may have escaped the scrutiny of many readers in 1987, it may not do so easily in 2023.”