Indiana AV Lawsuit Paused Pending SCOTUS Case Outcome

INDIANAPOLIS—A federal district court in Indiana paused an age verification lawsuit brought by the Free Speech Coalition and other adult industry plaintiffs, citing the ongoing litigation in the case Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton at the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia of the Southern District of Indiana granted a motion by FSC and its fellow plaintiffs for a stay in the Indiana case, Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Rokita. The adult industry plaintiffs sued Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, who represents the state via his solicitor general. Counsel representing the plaintiffs argues that the stay, or pause, on the proceedings, would be justified pending the Supreme Court case's outcome. "[The] plaintiffs argue a stay imposes little to no prejudice to [the] defendant because discovery is in its infancy and would avoid potentially needless expenditure of resources," writes Judge Garcia in his order granting the stay. "They further argue that there is no temporary injunction against the law at play because the Seventh Circuit has stayed [the] application of this court's preliminary injunction." Here, Garcia refers to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago granting a stay on the district court's preliminary injunction. AVN also reported the Seventh Circuit agreed to freeze ongoing proceedings until the high court rules on the Texas age verification case involving state Attorney General Ken Paxton. Supreme Court oral arguments are scheduled for January 15, 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union and top-level appellate law firms represent the Free Speech Coalition and the parent companies of the world's largest adult platforms. "The issue before the Supreme Court in Paxton is a question of what standard of review is applicable to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech—rational basis vs strict scrutiny," added Garcia. "This question shares overlap with the various issues brought by [Rokita] in its appeal to the Seventh Circuit ... where the [court] granted [the] plaintiffs' preliminary injunction, following application of the strict-scrutiny standard." That means that Rokita's only argument that resonated with the Seventh Circuit was to maintain continuity between the other appeals courts. One of the top reasons the Supreme Court granted review in the Texas age verification case was that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't apply strict scrutiny, which is the typical standard required for courts to decide the constitutionality of a law that regulates the First Amendment. It is worth noting that Rokita defends the Fifth Circuit's application of a lower level of judicial review. Rokita and attorneys representing his office are labeled at the top of an amicus brief filed alongside 23 other predominantly Republican state attorneys general arguing in favor of Paxton and the Fifth Circuit. This signifies that it is in Rokita's interest to fight adult industry plaintiffs in federal courts across the judicial system to defend potentially unconstitutional laws.