Florida strip club owners and adult stores are gearing up for a legal battle against a new law that bans hiring dancers and other staff under the age of 21. The legislation, part of a broader anti-human trafficking effort, is set to take effect on July 1. Signed by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) on May 13, the law mirrors a similar Texas statute recently upheld as constitutional and a Jacksonville, Florida ordinance currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The new age requirement is part of House Bill 7063, which aims to prevent individuals under 21 from being coerced into sex work. However, opponents argue that the measure infringes on constitutional rights and is an ineffective way to combat human trafficking. The law applies not only to performers but to all employees at adult entertainment businesses, including retail stores that sell sexually oriented videos, books, or magazines.

Aaron DiPietro, a lobbyist for Florida Family Voice, an affiliate of the Family Research Council, supports the bill. “Florida is number three in the nation for human trafficking, sex trafficking,” DiPietro said. “It is a serious problem, and it requires looking at the issue from multiple angles.”

Conversely, Angelina Spencer-Crisp, a former dancer who now manages trade associations for adult clubs and conducts trafficking-prevention training, believes the law is misguided. “I don’t see the state passing any laws that prevent 18, 19, and 20-year-olds from being in hotels,” she said. “They don’t want to hear the evidence. This is an election year, and this is awesome fodder to get conservatives to the polls.”

Despite nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Florida House and Senate, behind-the-scenes opposition delayed the bill’s passage until the final days of the legislative session.

Gary Edinger, an attorney representing challengers to Jacksonville’s ordinance, plans to file litigation against the new statewide law, arguing it is not “narrowly tailored” to minimize its impact on free speech while achieving lawmakers’ goals of fighting human trafficking. “We have our feelers out all around the state,” Edinger said. “I have been formally retained by a club and a performer. We will be filing a suit before July 1.”

Critics argue that banning under-21 dancers might push young adults into underground performing or sex work, where they are at greater risk of exploitation. Spencer-Crisp noted, “They can’t tell me how they’re helping the victims. You’ve probably ripped the economic rug out from underneath them.”

Representative Tobin Rogers “Toby” Overdorf (R), who sponsored HB 7063, dismissed the free-speech concerns, likening the age restriction to other job-related limitations imposed by the government. “I don’t think there’s a First Amendment issue. It’s for a line of employment,” Overdorf said.

While federal and state laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, set age limits on hazardous jobs, Florida recently relaxed its limits on underage employment in other sectors, allowing more 16- and 17-year-olds to work on construction sites.

The new law imposes criminal liability on club owners who hire under-21 staff or performers, making it a misdemeanor for adult entertainment businesses to employ anyone under 21, and a felony if they work while nude. The law also includes provisions to mandate reporting procedures and display hotlines for trafficking victims at locations such as airports, hotels, and massage businesses.

The core of Edinger’s legal challenge against the law is its lack of narrow tailoring, a key issue in First Amendment cases. A federal judge recently ruled that Texas’s similar law was narrowly tailored enough to meet government interests in preventing trafficking without overly burdening First Amendment rights. However, other age restrictions have not always withstood judicial scrutiny. For instance, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a law blocking customers under 21 from adult entertainment businesses in 1998, and the Tenth Circuit rejected a similar Colorado law in 2002.

Beyond First Amendment concerns, Edinger may challenge the Florida law on grounds of overbreadth and vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The state will struggle to justify why age limits on employees at adult retail stores are permissible because there’s no record of sex trafficking in those businesses, he said.

“They mostly look like lingerie stores with adult toys,” Edinger said. “The idea that trafficking would occur there is just ludicrous. There’s no nudity, There’s no dancing.”