Fsc Updates Complaint In Tennessee Av Case Ag Motions To Dismiss
The Protect Tennessee Minors Act (PTMA) was enacted in 2024, prior to the Supreme Court’s pivotal decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. In November 2024, FSC and co-plaintiffs MelRose Michaels, sex education platform O.school, sexual wellness retailer Adam & Eve and adult fan platform JustFor.Fans filed a legal challenge, prompting a Tennessee district court to temporarily block the law. However, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted that preliminary injunction, allowing the law to go into effect.
Following the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in FSC v. Paxton, FSC reps vowed to retrench in order to define “sensible limits” on AV laws so that anti-porn legislators cannot keep chipping away at the right of adults to access protected speech.
In the new amended complaint, FSC and its co-plaintiffs argue that the PTMA violates the First Amendment by imposing a content-based burden on protected speech, which is unlikely to survive even the “intermediate scrutiny” required under the SCOTUS ruling. The complaint also asserts that the law’s vagueness violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, and that treating website operators as publishers of material produced by other content providers conflicts with Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.
The amended complaint acknowledges the change in the legal landscape since the Supreme Court’s ruling but maintains that Tennessee has overstepped even the expanded bounds defined in that ruling.
“The PTMA is materially different than the Texas law challenged in Paxton, and this action seeks relief on grounds that the Supreme Court did not address in that case,” the new complaint reads. “Put otherwise, Paxton impacts this case but doesn’t decide it.”
In response, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on Thursday filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue him and that FSC and the other plaintiffs failed to present “sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.”
In a memorandum supporting the motion to dismiss, Skrmetti argues against the plaintiffs' contentions on a number of fronts, including stating that the state AG cannot be sued over the law because enforcement authority lies with district attorneys; that the absence of specific enforcement actions — there has been no "test case" — undermines their claim of standing; and that the PTMA does meet the “intermediate scrutiny” standard established in FSC v. Paxton.
Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman will rule on the motion to dismiss and whether the case can go forward.
