Court: Alabama Can Continue Sex Toy Sales Ban

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — In a blow to sex toy and novelty retailers, Alabama’s sex toy ban survived another court challenge in federal court.

A U.S. District Court in Birmingham ruled that Alabama has a right to limit sales of vibrators, sex dolls and butt plugs, as well as any other device used for sexual arousal.

Alabama’s sex toy statute criminalizes the commercial distribution of “any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” Violations are punishable with fines of up to $10,000 and as much as a year in prison.

Sheri Williams, who owns Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur, filed the lawsuit with seven other women and two men against the state Attorney General

Williams and the other plaintiffs argued the law was unconstitutional under Lawrence vs. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), in which the U.S. Supreme Court found no rational basis in public morality for banning sodomy.

But U.S. District Judge C. Smith’s latest ruling finds that the sex toy ban "does not fit squarely within the mold of Lawrence" and therefore survives review.

"[T]he Alabama statute does not offend the human dignity of a stigmatized class of individuals, nor implicate equal protection concerns about targeting a 'discrete and insular minority' for discrimination or harm out of simple hostility," Smith said in the ruling.

The case has wended its way throughout the legal labyrinth for seven years, starting with Smith’s 1999 holding that the law “was not rationally related to any legitimate state interest."

In a following legal test Smith reversed his decision, then invalidated it.

Then the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals limited Smith’s review to a more narrow issue — whether public morality is still a sufficiently rational basis to prohibit what the state's lawyers have called "commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake."

This time around, Smith showed sarcasm after being rebuked by the 11th Circuit for not following its earlier instructions. "This lowly court," he said in a footnote, "can only hope that it has not again so woefully misconstrued the 11th Circuit’s directives."

The case is Williams vs. King, No. CV-98-S-1938.

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

NC Governor Vetoes Bill Targeting Adult, Could Face Override

North Carolina Governor Josh Stein today vetoed a bill imposing new regulations that adult industry observers have warned could push adult websites and platforms to ban most adult creators and content.

Eye of Love Expands 'Bloom' Collection

Eye of Love has introduced two new perfume oils from its Bloom collection.

Nobü Expands 'Essentials' Collection

Nobü is expanding its Essentials collection with three new pleasure products.

25,000 Sign Petition to Legalize Pornography in Ukraine

An OnlyFans model’s petition to decriminalize pornography in Ukraine has amassed the 25,000 signatures required for official consideration by President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Like a Kitten to Launch 'Adventure Collection'

Pleasure brand Like a Kitten has announced that it will launch its new Adventure Collection on July 15.

Full Circle Debuts New Bullet Vibes

Pleasure brand Full Circle has introduced a new range of bullet vibrators.

Magic Silk Debuts 'Butterfly Fantasies' Collection

Magic Silk has introduced its new Butterfly Fantasies line of intimate wear.

Orion Debuts 'Vipepad' Ride-On Vibrator

Orion Wholesale has introduced the latest edition of its Vibepad ride-on vibrator.

Xgen's Dr. Mindy DeSeta Spotlighted on CBS News

CBS News has spotlighted Xgen Products resident sex therapist Dr. Mindy DeSeta on its Miami and West Palm Beach affiliate stations.

FSC Unpacks SCOTUS Age Verification Ruling in Webinar

The Free Speech Coalition conducted a public webinar Tuesday to help adult industry stakeholders understand the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FSC v. Paxton, and its potential implications.

Show More