The Tennessee Adult Entertainment Act,[1] also known as the Tennessee drag ban,[2] was an anti-drag bill, which banned public "adult cabaret performance" in public or in front of children in the state of Tennessee. The act was vague in what it considered an "adult cabaret performance" although it defined it as a "male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest."[3]
It was the first anti-drag act to pass a state legislature in the United States, and was the first to be signed into law. The act was signed on March 2, 2023, by Governor Bill Lee,[4] becoming Public Chapter No. 2 of the Tennessee Code.[5] It was criticized for being overly vague and authoritarian.[6][7][8]
Critics have suggested that the legislation was a direct reaction to the circulation of footage from the 2022 Franklin Pride festival online, pointing to the similar language used in a 2023 attempt to deny a permit to Franklin Pride: "Some members of the town launched a campaign to deny a permit for this year's event, describing it as a threat to children."[9]Nashville's News Channel 5 reported that "a majority of the board wanted to wait for a community decency resolution to come up for a vote before the permit approval."[10]
The house's bill sponsor, Chris Todd, introduced the measure in that chamber after he fought a public Pride show in Jackson, TN, claiming that drag is inherently inappropriate for minors.[11][12]
One news agency traced the possible origin to a complaint about footage of the debut of drag queen persona Witchcrafted recorded at Tennessee Tech University's Backdoor Playhouse. When conservative activist and founder of Freedom Forever, Landon Starbuck, viewed the video, she posted an edited version to Twitter to encourage complaints to the university.[13]
Attorney generalJonathan Skrmetti filed a Notice of Appeal on June 30, 2023.[20][21] The Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments at a hearing on February 1, 2024.[22] On July 18, 2024, a three judge panel on the Sixth Circuit reinstated the law by ruling that the plaintiffs had lacked the standing to sue. The ruling did not address whether the law was constitutional.[23]