A U.S. district court in Memphis, Tennessee, has denied the Tennessee attorney general’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and co-plaintiffs, challenging the state’s age verification law. The ruling allows the case, which alleges the Protect Tennessee Minors Act (PTMA) is unconstitutional, to proceed.

Court Denies Dismissal, Case Moves Forward

On Tuesday, Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ruled against Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Skrmetti had contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue him and failed to present sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. Judge Lipman’s decision means the legal challenge to the Protect Tennessee Minors Act can now move into its next phase, including discovery.

The Protect Tennessee Minors Act, enacted in 2024, mandates age verification for adult websites. In November 2024, the FSC, along with co-plaintiffs MelRose Michaels, sex education platform O.school, sexual wellness retailer Adam & Eve, and adult fan platform JustFor.Fans, filed a legal challenge. A Tennessee district court initially granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the law. However, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently lifted this injunction, allowing the law to go into effect. The law criminalizes noncompliance with age verification requirements, imposing penalties that include felony charges and up to 15 years in prison.

Following the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, FSC representatives stated their intention to define "sensible limits" on age verification laws. In an amended complaint, the FSC and its co-plaintiffs argued that the PTMA violates the First Amendment by imposing a content-based burden on protected speech, which they assert is unlikely to survive even the "intermediate scrutiny" required under the Supreme Court ruling. The complaint also asserted 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 acknowledged the change in the legal landscape since the Paxton ruling but maintained that Tennessee had overstepped the expanded bounds defined in that ruling.

Jeff Sandman, lead counsel for the FSC and co-plaintiffs, praised Judge Lipman’s "thorough, thoughtful, and reasoned decision." He stated that the FSC and co-plaintiffs are "excited to vigorously pursue our claims as the case enters its next phase." Mike Stabile, director of public policy for FSC, described the ruling as a "crucial victory" that demonstrates the strength of their arguments.

Arguments on Standing, Vagueness, and Burden

Judge Lipman’s ruling specifically addressed several key points. She determined that the FSC and the other plaintiffs do have standing to sue, which is an essential requirement in federal lawsuits. Jeffrey Douglas, FSC board chair, commented that the court ruled they have "standing," which he described as an increasingly difficult hurdle to overcome. Douglas noted that the attorney general lost on a number of other important issues, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed on the substance of all their constitutional challenges.

The ruling noted that while the Constitution recognizes a "valid governmental interest" in dealing with obscenity, the mere assertion of that interest does not automatically override constitutional protections. While Judge Lipman did not rule on the plaintiffs’ assertion that the PTMA violates the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional, she did rule that the FSC and other plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim. She indicated that specific provisions of the Protect Tennessee Minors Act, such as a requirement that a user’s age must be reverified every 60 minutes, could be argued to impose a heightened burden on adult users’ access to sexual content.

Additionally, Judge Lipman found it "plausible" that certain terminology in the law is so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence might not understand what is or is not prohibited by the PTMA. She wrote that "Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the PTMA as amended may substantially burden more speech than necessary." One area identified as potentially vague is the law’s definition of a covered website as one on which a "substantial portion" of the material is harmful to minors. The PTMA, like other state age verification laws, defines "substantial portion" as one-third or more of the total data, but without specifying what this means. Judge Lipman noted that this allows Tennessee to decide what constitutes a "substantial portion" using an "excessively subjective" standard. While she did not rule on whether this vagueness renders the law unconstitutional, she agreed with the plaintiffs that their allegations regarding unconstitutionally vague terms are plausible. A court ruling that the "substantial portion"/"one third" rule is unconstitutionally vague could have ramifications in other states with similar provisions in their age verification laws.

Judge Lipman also found the plaintiffs’ argument that the PTMA may be preempted by Section 230 protections to be plausible.

Intermediate Scrutiny to Apply

An important aspect of Judge Lipman’s ruling is her determination that "intermediate scrutiny" should apply in the case. The FSC had argued for the highest level of judicial review, "strict scrutiny," while the state of Tennessee argued for intermediate scrutiny. While the case can now move forward, Judge Lipman’s ruling that only intermediate scrutiny applies will likely make it more difficult for the plaintiffs to prove that the law violates the First Amendment.

Key Facts

  • On Tuesday, September 16, 2026, Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the Protect Tennessee Minors Act.
  • The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and co-plaintiffs MelRose Michaels, O.school, Adam & Eve, and JustFor.Fans filed the legal challenge in November 2024.
  • The lawsuit argues that the PTMA violates the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, and conflicts with Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.
  • Judge Lipman ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to sue and have stated a plausible claim, allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
  • The court found it plausible that provisions like hourly age reverification impose a heightened burden and that terms like "substantial portion" are unconstitutionally vague.
  • Judge Lipman ruled that "intermediate scrutiny" will apply to the case, a standard that may make it more challenging for plaintiffs to prove First Amendment violations compared to strict scrutiny.