The Age Gate Law can be enforced by authorities

Chicago-The Indiana age verification statute for adult content was granted legal standing by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, overturning an earlier court's injunction that had prevented its implementation.

According to the news, a U.S. district judge in Indiana had earlier prevented the statute from going into effect on July 1, as that was the original scheduled date.

The federal appeals court, which is predominately made up of conservative judges nominated by Republican presidents, decided on Friday that Indiana's SEA 17 and Texas's age verification statute, which went into effect in April, were "functionally identical." The Free Speech Coalition is challenging the Texas law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case next term. However, the court declined to grant a preliminary injunction to halt the statute's enforcement until further notice.

In a statement following the 7th Circuit Court ruling, the Free Speech Coalition alerted adult companies to the fact that Indiana's attorney general may now start enforcing the statute, pointing out that it “permits residents of Indiana to bring a civil suit against sites with "material harmful to minors.'”

Judges Amy J. St. Eve, a George W. Bush nominee, and Frank H. Easterbrook, a Ronald Reagan appointee, of the 7th Circuit ruled that the court sees no reason why Indiana's statute may not be implemented but Texas' law may be, "pending the decision on the merits."

“Functionally identical statutes should be treated the same while the Supreme Court considers the matter,” they continued.

In a partial dissent, Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner—a George H.W. Bush appointee—argued against letting the Indiana law go into effect, citing the fact that, in contrast to Texas, the Indiana plaintiffs have not yet been required to comply with the law's "burdensome requirements" because the Texas law was already in place when the Supreme Court declined to overturn it, but the Indiana law has not yet taken effect.

The plaintiffs in Texas, she observed, "were already subjected to its burdens," and the Supreme Court of the United States "merely left the case as it found it, leaving the parties no worse off than they been."

First Amendment Attorney Mark Nicholson Condemns the Decision

Sex worker advocate and First Amendment attorney Mark Nicholson said, "these court decisions strip away our first amendment rights and freedom to choose. "

According to Attorney Nicholson, "the 7th Circuit should have recognized by the Supreme Court's decision to grant review that there are serious constitutional issues with these age verification laws. That fact alone should have kept the injunction in place because the Supreme Court may rule these laws are unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. Additionally, the dissent is correct in that the Indiana case had a different procedural posture. The law was never in effect. The injunction should have remained in place throughout the appellate process."

"Unfortunately, now that this law is allowed to go into effect before the merits of the constitutional challenge are considered by the 7th Circuit, adult website operators will likely be required to bear the substantial burdens of this law," Attorney Nicholson said.

The First Amendment right of adults in Indiana to access adult content that is protected by the constitution will also be impeded by being required to undergo age verification, along with being exposed to the associated dangers of data leaks.

"I think Judge Young''s preliminary injunction was absolutely correct since SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] will hear a challenge to the law.“

Hopefully, the Supreme Court "will require these laws to be subjected to strict scrutiny review as similar laws have been for decades but I'm not hopeful," said Attorney Nicholson.