(Reuters) - An attorney for several Florida adult-oriented businesses urged a federal judge in Tampa to strike down a U.S. law banning them from a pandemic relief program at a hearing on Wednesday, saying the prohibition violates the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge William Jung said granting the businesses' request to block the U.S. Small Business Administration from excluding strip clubs and adult bookstores from the Paycheck Protection Program would necessarily mean invalidating part of a December law reauthorizing the program. The law banned businesses of a "prurient sexual nature" from obtaining forgivable PPP loans, language that came from SBA regulations the lawsuit originally challenged.

Although other federal judges had ruled to block the regulatory ban last year, Jung appears to be the first to address whether the ban now contained in the law impinges on free speech.

"I can't say now the SBA abused their discretion, I now have to say Congress put that in there and I am going to strike it. What other alternative would there be to get you relief?" Jung asked.

The lawsuit filed by adult entertainment store Al-Rob Corp and others in June challenged their exclusion from the program Congress created in March to help small businesses stay afloat and make payroll amid the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing economic crisis. Lawmakers approved $284 billion in new funds in December on top of the $525 billion in PPP loans made earlier in 2020.

At Wednesday's hearing on the company's motion for an injunction, Al-Rob attorney Luke Lirot agreed with Jung's premise, saying the law must be struck down. Whether expressed in an SBA regulation or by Congress, he said the "prurient" ban is a content-based restriction that cuts businesses out of disaster relief because of their constitutionally protected speech.

"Regardless of what Congress does, it still violates the First Amendment by predicating a decision based on the content of my clients' materials and or performances," he said.

Jung appeared troubled at the lack of clear criteria to determine when a business is of a "prurient sexual nature," questioning Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Kenneth, who represented the SBA, over the difference between the businesses barred from the PPP program and the restaurant chain Hooters, which markets the fact its waitresses wear revealing attire.

"Basically, they are selling sex. Their wings are at best average," he said.

Kenneth said that under Supreme Court precedent, content-based restrictions on government subsidies do not need to be precise to pass constitutional muster – unlike restrictions on licenses, which would prevent speech if they are not granted.

"I don't want to say we are two ships passing in the night, but we are arguing about two different things," he said.

The case is Al-Rob Corp et al. v. United States Small Business Administration et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, No. 20-cv-01497.

For the businesses: Luke Lirot

For the SBA: Michael Kenneth of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida