Here's the word salad excuse given to not allow Florida to continue enforcing the law while it works its way through the courts. [Quote]In an order written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court said that while the case centers around First Amendment questions, the state's appeal "challenges only the scope of relief ordered by the District Court — namely, that the injunction prohibits state enforcement of the law not only against Hamburger Mary’s but also against other entities that are non-parties to this litigation." "To begin with, although Florida strongly disagrees with the District Court’s First Amendment analysis, Florida’s stay application to this Court does not raise that First Amendment issue," the order says. "Therefore, the Court’s denial of the stay indicates nothing about our view on whether Florida’s new law violates the First Amendment," it reads. "The question of whether a district court, after holding that a law violates the Constitution, may nonetheless enjoin the government from enforcing that law against non-parties to the litigation is an important question that could warrant our review in the future," Kavanaugh wrote. "But the issue arises here in the context of a First Amendment overbreadth challenge, which presents its own doctrinal complexities about the scope of relief. This case is therefore an imperfect vehicle for considering the general question of whether a district court may enjoin a government from enforcing a law against non-parties to the litigation. For that reason, the Court is not likely to grant certiorari on that issue in this particular case," he continued. "In sum, because this Court is not likely to grant certiorari on the only issue presented in Florida’s stay application, it is appropriate for the Court to deny the application," Kavanaugh concluded.[/quote]