WASHINGTON — The Woodhull Freedom Foundation and other plaintiffs have asked a federal appeals court for more time to file briefs in its bid to block enforcement of FOSTA.

The request, which is unopposed by the Justice Department but hasn’t yet been approved by the court, would extend the submission of Woodhull’s opening briefs by at least a month, moving the deadline into mid-February.

Woodhull was originally scheduled to deliver its opening brief by Jan. 14.

If approved by the court, Woodhull would produce its opening brief by Feb. 13, and Justice Department attorneys would respond by March 15.

Woodhull attorneys said additional time is requested because of previous winter holiday commitments, as well as a number of briefs scheduled previously in other legal cases.

In the case, Woodhull contends the law amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which previously provided companies immunity from most liability for publishing third-party content, violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

Since FOSTA was passed in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Trump numerous adult websites have been affected by the measure's intention to outlaw prostitution advertising. Some adult sites, like CityVibe.com and Nightshift.co, have even closed shop.

Scores of mainstream sites also have laid down the gavel. Craigslist cut all of its popular personal ads. Meanwhile, Facebook in October changed its community standards policies for sexual solicitation and nudity. And Tumblr recently announced that it would ban porn on its site; that ban starts Monday.

With the appeal, Woodhull is asking a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit to toss a decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s order that granted the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss their lawsuit over the enforcement of FOSTA.

Leon shot down the lawsuit because he ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing in the case; he never reached the constitutional issues involving FOSTA.

Last month Woodhull and others offered a statement of issues to be raised, as well as other court papers that get the appeal off the ground.

The appellants raised numerous points in their appeal, including whether the court erred by ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge FOSTA’s constitutionality and whether the act is overbroad and enacts unconstitutionally vague restrictions.

Along with Woodhull, other plaintiffs include Human Rights Watch, Eric Koszyk, Alex Andrews and the Internet Archive.

Attorneys representing Woodhull include Lawrence Walters of Walters Law Group, Robert Corn-Revere and Ronald London of Davis Wright Tremaine, Aaron Mackey and David Greene of the Electronic Freedom Foundation and Daphne Keller.