Federal judge bars Tennessee prosecutor from enforcing anti-drag law in Blount Pride case
"[T]he Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order."
U.S. District Judge J. Ronnie Greer barred the Blount County, Tennessee, prosecutor and law enforcement in the county from enforcing the state’s new anti-drag law in advance of this weekend’s Blount Pride.
In issuing the temporary restraining order against District Attorney General Ryan Desmond, the county sheriff, and the two police chiefs in the county, Greer, a George W. Bush appointee, also barred the officials from “interfering” with the Sept. 2 pride festival “by any means.”
A TRO is, as apparent from its name, temporary. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction against the anti-drag “Adult Entertainment Act,” which would last throughout the litigation, is set for Sept. 8.
As such, and since TROs are not generally appealable, this is likely the end of the matter as to Blount Pride, since the event is on Saturday.
Despite a June ruling in a federal case out of Shelby County declaring the state’s anti-drag law to be unconstitutional, Desmond set in motion this week’s events when he sent a “notice” to Blount Pride’s organizers, the local law enforcement, and others detailing “concerns” about whether the event would violate the anti-drag law, noting his conclusion that the law is constitutional and remained enforceable in Blount County, and announcing his intent to prosecute any violations.
Blount Pride and Matthew Lovegood, aka Flamy Grant — the drag queen scheduled to perform at Blount Pride — sued a day later.
Although Desmond later argued in court that his letter “is not an enforcement warning letter,” Greer wasn’t buying it. “But his reading of his own notice is a selective one, because throughout the notice, he warns would-be violators of the Act of his authority and his intention to prosecute them under the Act,” Greer wrote, citing four selections from the letter and the fact that the letter was also sent to law enforcement.
![“[T]he Blount County District Attorney's Office is aware of a coming event planned for September 2, 2023, that is marketing itself in a manner which raises concerns that the event may violate certain criminal statutes within the State of Tennessee.” • “It is my conclusion that violations of the [Act] can and will be prosecuted by my office.” • “[If] review of the evidence substantiates the charges, the Blount County District Attorney’s Office will prosecute any criminal violations, subject to our prosecutorial discretion.” • “[I]f sufficient evidence is presented to this office that these referenced criminal statutes have been violated, our office will ethically and justly prosecute these cases in the interests of justice.” [Notice at 1–3]. And the Court cannot help but wonder, why would District Attorney Desmond send the notice to multiple local law enforcement officials—Chief Crisp, Sheriff Berrong, and Chief Carswell—if, as he now claims, his notice is merely a paper tiger and nothing more? The record, therefore, firmly satisfies the second factor.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!k3q0!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc0e19ec3-5c9e-4eb4-a824-67701fac5738_1326x878.png "“[T]he Blount County District Attorney's Office is aware of a coming event planned for September 2, 2023, that is marketing itself in a manner which raises concerns that the event may violate certain criminal statutes within the State of Tennessee.” • “It is my conclusion that violations of the [Act] can and will be prosecuted by my office.” • “[If] review of the evidence substantiates the charges, the Blount County District Attorney’s Office will prosecute any criminal violations, subject to our prosecutorial discretion.” • “[I]f sufficient evidence is presented to this office that these referenced criminal statutes have been violated, our office will ethically and justly prosecute these cases in the interests of justice.” [Notice at 1–3]. And the Court cannot help but wonder, why would District Attorney Desmond send the notice to multiple local law enforcement officials—Chief Crisp, Sheriff Berrong, and Chief Carswell—if, as he now claims, his notice is merely a paper tiger and nothing more? The record, therefore, firmly satisfies the second factor.")
Although Greer did not address the question — disputed by the parties — of whether Desmond is covered by the declaration that the law is unconstitutional in the case out of Shelby County, Greer held up that ruling, from U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker, as “well-written, scrupulously researched, and highly persuasive“ and stated that he “is likely to adopt Judge Parker’s reasoning in addressing the constitutional questions that Plaintiffs raise in their complaint.”
After siding with the plaintiffs on other factors as well, Greer granted the TRO. Here is the main part of Greer’s order:
![Under Rule 65, Plaintiffs satisfy their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with Incorporated Memorandum of Law [Doc. 2], to the extent Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order, is GRANTED, and the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Defendants Ryan K. Desmond, James Berrong, Tony Crisp, and David Carswell, in their official capacities, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing, detaining, arresting, or seeking warrants or taking any other action to enforce or threaten to enforce T.C.A. § 7-51-1407 pending further order of this Court. 2. Defendants Ryan K. Desmond, James Berrong, Tony Crisp, and David Carswell, in their official capacities, are hereby ENJOINED from interfering with Blount Pride’s festival, scheduled for September 2, 2023, by any means, including but not limited to, discouraging third parties including but not limited to the event venue, Maryville College, from hosting the event or making modifications to the event.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!YUcw!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F73b9ef3c-68ab-4a62-aeae-96a97b28b152_1286x1004.png "Under Rule 65, Plaintiffs satisfy their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with Incorporated Memorandum of Law [Doc. 2], to the extent Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order, is GRANTED, and the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Defendants Ryan K. Desmond, James Berrong, Tony Crisp, and David Carswell, in their official capacities, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing, detaining, arresting, or seeking warrants or taking any other action to enforce or threaten to enforce T.C.A. § 7-51-1407 pending further order of this Court. 2. Defendants Ryan K. Desmond, James Berrong, Tony Crisp, and David Carswell, in their official capacities, are hereby ENJOINED from interfering with Blount Pride’s festival, scheduled for September 2, 2023, by any means, including but not limited to, discouraging third parties including but not limited to the event venue, Maryville College, from hosting the event or making modifications to the event.")
This is a breaking news report. Check back at Law Dork for the latest.
Excellent. Happy Pride, Blount!!
This District Attorney is a lawless rogue. Despite the fact that the law was already declared unconstitutional by a federal court in his own state, this guy just pissed on that decision like it was nothing. If I were Judge Greer I would have issued an OSC as to why the District Attorney shouldn't be the subject of sanctions for ignoring the prior ruling and why he shouldn't pay, out of his own pocket, the costs of filing for the TRO. And I would have made the OSC returnable by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday so the bastard would have to spend time over the holiday weekend drafting the response.
These people - these self-identified law and order patriots and "constitutional conservatives" - have just completely lost their sense of what is required with respect to the legal process. They have complete contempt for precedent they don't like in both the legal and colloquial sense. And as a lawyer I find that really offensive. It's corrosive.