# data[].attributes.headline
Baptist Global News, 03/17/2025:  Leila in conversation with Greg Garrett

# data[].attributes.subject
Baptist Global News, 03/17/2025:  Leila in conversation with Greg Garrett

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In conversation with Leila Green Little – Baptist News Global

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leila Little has spoken out against censorship, served as an advocate for community libraries and librarians.

# data[].attributes.headline
Interview by Thomas Keck, Syracuse con law prof, 08/24/2026

# data[].attributes.subject
Interview by Thomas Keck, Syracuse con law prof, 08/24/2026

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On rural Texans fighting back against censorship

# data[].attributes.headline
Nationale Bibliotheek, 07/02/2026:  Leila gives presentation in The Hague

# data[].attributes.subject
Nationale Bibliotheek, 07/02/2026:  Leila gives presentation in The Hague

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leila Green Little over de strijd tegen verboden boeken in de VS | KB nationale bibliotheek

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Monthly, 02/24/2026:  Littles running for commissioner 

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Monthly, 02/24/2026:  Littles running for commissioner 

# data[].attributes.headline
BookRiot post by Leila, 02/13/2026:  Effects of lawsuit

# data[].attributes.subject
BookRiot post by Leila, 02/13/2026:  Effects of lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Little v. Llano County Legalized Library Censorship. What Exactly Does This Mean?: Book Censorship News, February 13, 2026

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are the censorship implications of Little v. Llano County? Lead plaintiff Leila Green Little talks about the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom Staff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What now? Libraries after LITTLE V. LLANO COUNTY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In December 2025, the Supreme Court declined to review a Fifth Circuit Court case about whether the government can remove books from a public library’s shelves. This guide provides an overview of the case and explains what it says about the right to read in libraries.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Preamble blog, 12/19/2025:  Commentary on SCOTUS denial

# data[].attributes.subject
The Preamble blog, 12/19/2025:  Commentary on SCOTUS denial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why “protecting people” is actually just controlling them

# data[].attributes.headline
Time Magazine, 12/17/2025:  Amanda Jones and Suzette Baker op-ed 

# data[].attributes.subject
Time Magazine, 12/17/2025:  Amanda Jones and Suzette Baker op-ed 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court Just Opened the Door to a New Era of Book Bans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court’s inaction puts Americans’ First Amendment rights at risk.

# data[].attributes.headline
School Library Journal, 12/16/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert 

# data[].attributes.subject
School Library Journal, 12/16/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Leila Green Little et al. v. Llano County, the lawsuit challenging the Texas county library’s removal of 17 books featuring content on sexuality, gender, and racism.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Texan, 12/15/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Texan, 12/15/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal for Rehearing in Llano County Library Book Removal Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal for a rehearing in Little v. Llano County.

# data[].attributes.headline
Words and Money, 12/12/2025:  Interview with Leila and Andrew 

# data[].attributes.subject
Words and Money, 12/12/2025:  Interview with Leila and Andrew 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Conversation: Freedom to Read Advocate Leila Green Little

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Words & Money talks with the lead plaintiff in Little v. Llano County about her four year fight against censorship.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 12/11/2025:  Leila’s letter to the editor

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 12/11/2025:  Leila’s letter to the editor

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Insurrection, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Insurrection, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a group of Texas county residents challenging their local library's removal of LGBTQ and other controversial books from its bookshelves.

Yesterday, the Court denied the groups' petition to review the case, letting stand the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' earlier dismissal of their free speech claims against the so-called "book bans."

We covered the case, Little v. Llano County, here:
Federal Appeals Court Tosses "Book Ban" Challenge, Library May Remove Books Based on Content
To recap briefly, the conflict between county residents and library officials began in 2021, when, responding to public complaints, the Llano County library removed 17 controversial books from its shelves, including these children's books: Freakboy; Freddy the Farting Snowman; and Being Jazz: My Life As a Transgender Teen. A group of patrons then sued, alleging the library had illegally banned the books.

At first, the case was going the plaintiffs' way. In 2023, the federal district court sided with the patrons, ruling the library violated their right to receive information under the Free Speech Clause and ordering the books to be put back on the shelves. Last year, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court agreed.

On appeal, however, a full panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 that there is "no such right" under the First Amendment: "It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book," Judge Stuart Duncan, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the panel. "The First Amendment protects your right to do that." "It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you the right to demand that."

The court also held that the library's book selections are government speech, similar to a city museum's selection of which paintings to feature in an exhibit-and therefore not subject to a Free Speech challenge.

The library patrons then petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and reverse the appellate court's decision "immunizing" viewpoint discrimination in violation of their First Amendment rights.

Now, in denying their bid to review the case, the Court leaves in place the rule in the Fifth Circuit, that the First Amendment can't be invoked to challenge a library's decision "about which books to buy, which books to keep, or which books to remove."

As Judge Duncan put it when he told everyone to "take a deep breath": "No one is banning (or burning) books. If a disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend."

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Texas 'Book Bans,' Library May Remove LGBTQ Books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Court announced it will not intervene in a case challenging a public library's removal of LGBTQ and other controversial books.

# data[].attributes.headline
KVUE, 12/09/2025:  Video, SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
KVUE, 12/09/2025:  Video, SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book removal allowed at Llano County Library after US Supreme Court refuses to hear case

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Public Radio, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Public Radio, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Llano County library book removals allowed after U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear challenge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seven residents launched a challenge in 2022 to the removal of 17 books, which included topics on race and gender. They won a reinstatement of the titles, but lost on appeal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Penguin Random House press release, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Penguin Random House press release, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Penguin Random House on SCOTUS’ Decision Not to Hear Little v. Llano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Penguin Random House on SCOTUS’ Decision Not to Hear Little v. Llano #TeamPRH

# data[].attributes.headline
AXIOS, 12/09/2025:  Denial of cert, quotes from Leila

# data[].attributes.subject
AXIOS, 12/09/2025:  Denial of cert, quotes from Leila

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Our government inserted itself into the personal reading choices of the citizens," lead plaintiff Leila Green Little told Axios in an interview on Tuesday. "If that's not something important to speak up for, I don't know what is."

Driving the news: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the challenge against the removal of more than a dozen books from a central Texas county's libraries, letting stand an appeals court ruling that rejected the plaintiff's argument that the right to receive information extends to public libraries.

Writing for the 5th Circuit earlier this year, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee, stated "[n]o one is banning" books, adding that if a "disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend."

Threat level: Retired librarian Carolyn Foote, a co-founder of the Texas FReadom Fighters, told Axios the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case will "embolden people who are trying to restrict books from the public, from students. "

She continued, "I do believe library users have First Amendment rights, and I do believe that local communities should be able to fight for the kinds of stories they want to see on their local shelves."

Little said she's already seen the appeals court decision in the case she and her fellow plaintiffs brought cited elsewhere in what she said are attempts at "further censorship at public libraries and in public school libraries."

She told Axios, "This is only the beginning."

Flashback: Little and six fellow plaintiffs sued a group of local officials in April 2022 for the removal of books such as "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent" and "They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group."

In 2021, a Texas lawmaker turned heads with his list of hundreds of books he deemed objectionable.

After that, some Llano County residents alerted local commissioners of what they described as "Pornographic Filth" in libraries, Axios' Asher Price reported based on emails, prompting the county judge (the chief elected official in the county) to tell the library director to pull books.

Suzette Baker, who served as the head librarian of one of the county's libraries, alleged she was fired for insubordination after she refused to remove books from the shelves that dealt with gender and race.

Catch up quick: A federal judge in 2023 ordered Llano County officials to return the books to the shelves. But earlier this year, a majority of the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order.

The appeals court decision sets precedent in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

In their request to the Supreme Court, the Llano County residents described the removals as "censorship." But the officials argued the library system was routinely weeding books and that the decisions were not related to the content within them.

County Judge Ron Cunningham did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

Yes, but: "When you remove books as a librarian, it's through a weeding process ... you review sections of the library, like a whole section of the library at a time," Foote said.

She added, "weeding is not when someone sends you a list of books they're concerned about, and you go pluck them off the shelf. "

What they're saying: Sam Helmick, the president of the American Library Association, said in a statement emailed to Axios that the Supreme Court's denial left "millions of library users" with "a diminished right to read and explore information free from government interference."

Helmick added, "The ruling threatens to transform government libraries into centers for indoctrination instead of protecting them as hubs of open inquiry."
Go deeper: Book wars: Texas county poised to close its libraries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
they called themselves the k.k.k.: the birth of an american terrorist group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
first amendment to the united states constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SCOTUS' denial of Texas case fuels First Amendment fears

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The clash that pits First Amendment rights against government and parental controls is playing out across the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fox 7 Austin, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Fox 7 Austin, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SCOTUS won’t rule on Texas library’s book banning case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It all started in 2021, when a community in a small county near Austin decided to rid their public library’s shelves of “inappropriate” literature.

# data[].attributes.headline
Words and Money, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Words and Money, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In The News
The denial in 'Little v. Llano County' lets stand a controversial Fifth Circuit decision empowering local leaders in three states to remove books from public libraries at will, even for unconstitutional viewpoint discretion.

In a blow to the freedom to read-at least for now-the Supreme Court on December 8 denied a petition to review a key Texas book banning case, Little v. Llano County. The order was delivered without explanation and comes after a scheduled December 5 conference.

The petition before the high court came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in May, in a stunning decision, held that there is no First Amendment right to receive information in libraries. While that decision is not binding nationwide, lawyers say the Supreme Court denial effectively gives local leaders in the three states where the Fifth Circuit holds jurisdiction (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) sweeping power to remove books from public libraries at will, even for unconstitutional viewpoint discretion.

The original case, the first major lawsuit of this current wave of right-wing book bans, was filed in April 2022 by seven Llano County, Texas residents. It accused Llano County officials of improperly removing some 17 books from library shelves because they disapproved of the content.

In a forceful March 2023 decision, federal judge Robert Pitman found for the plaintiffs, and issued a preliminary injunction ordering the books returned to library shelves and barring the county from removing any more books while the case proceeded.

More than a year later, in June 2024 (a suspiciously long delay for such a straightforward case, lawyers noted), Pitman's decision was affirmed by a split three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit-but with a fiery dissent by conservative justice Stuart Kyle Duncan.

Weeks later, on July 3, 2024, the Fifth Circuit abruptly vacated the panel's decision, and ordered the appeal to be reheard en banc by the full Fifth Circuit. And in May, by a 10-7 margin, the full Fifth Circuit voted to reverse Pitman, in the process overruling its own 30-year old, unanimous precedent in Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, a 1995 First Amendment decision that has long served as an anti-censorship bulwark for librarians.

This time, Duncan wrote the majority opinion: "Yes, Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech. But plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books. The First Amendment acknowledges no such right," Duncan concluded. "A plaintiff may not invoke that right to challenge a library's decisions about which books to buy, which books to keep, or which books to remove."

Notably, a seven judge plurality of the Fifth Circuit also agreed with Duncan that library book decisions are "government speech" and therefore not subject to First Amendment challenges, a concept that has animated several right wing legislative efforts to ban books in libraries in recent years. But with only a plurality of Fifth Circuit judges agreeing with such a massive expansion of the government speech doctrine, which holds that the First Amendment does not impose "a requirement of viewpoint-neutrality" on speech undertaken by the government, that conclusion is not binding.

In a stinging dissent, Fifth Circuit judge Stephen Higginson, writing for the minority, blasted the Fifth Circuit's majority opinion.

"The majority concedes by silence that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendants' removal decisions likely were motivated by discrimination against certain ideas and a desire to limit access to those ideas," Higginson wrote. "Nonetheless, our court instead announces a new abridgement of the First Amendment, holding that public library patrons may not challenge even politically motivated book removals. Hereafter across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, it simply does not matter legally if public officials, motivated by political hostility, target and remove books they deem inappropriate or offensive, in order to deny the public access to the information and ideas therein."

The Legal Battle Is Not Over

In a December 8 statement, plaintiff Leila Green Little thanked her lawyers and fellow plaintiffs, and echoed Higginson's criticism.

"[The Supreme Court's denial] means that the en banc ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will remain in effect for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi," Green Little said. "This means that public library patrons have no First Amendment rights to access information. This means we now live in a censorship state."

But while the decision not to take the case is a blow to the freedom to read, especially in the three states where the Fifth Circuit ruling is binding, even the Llano County defendants acknowledge that the issues at the heart of the Llano case are likely to reach the high court again soon, with at least four other high-profile lawsuits now in process.

"The Court will eventually have to resolve whether (and to what extent) the Speech Clause prevents government-owned libraries from removing materials in their collections," lawyers for the Llano defendants conceded in an October 24 brief in which they urged the high court not to take the case.

Specifically, lawyers for Llano County argued that the Supreme Court should decline the Llano case and wait for three other book banning cases to be decided: In the Eighth Circuit, Penguin Random House v. Robbins(in which a district court found Iowa's sweeping book ban provision in SF 496 to be unconstitutional); in the 10th Circuit, Crookshanks v. Elizabeth School District (in which a lower court found that 19 book removals in a high school were unconstitutional); and in the Eleventh Circuit, Parnell v. School Board of Escambia County (in which a district court, leaning heavily on the Fifth Circuit's Llano decision, agreed there is no First Amendment right to receive information in a school library).

In addition, the Ninth Circuit is currently reviewing a challenge of Idaho's recently enacted law HB 710, which requires schools and libraries to remove books vaguely deemed to be "harmful" to minors.

But, as the plaintiffs argued in their November 10 reply brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case, that the issues in the Llano case are likely get to the Supreme Court eventually is cold comfort for residents in the three states where local officials are empowered to remove library books virtually at will.

"This case turns on the 'bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment': that 'the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,'" lawyers for the Llano plaintiffs argued their brief. "If this Court were to postpone review, state and local governments in the Fifth Circuit could freely deploy public libraries as instruments of 'naked censorship' during that period of delay. Leaving such a system in place-even for 'another year or two,' is antithetical to our Nation's most cherished constitutional values."

Reaction

At press time, reaction to the Supreme Court's denial was beginning to roll in.

"The Supreme Court's decision not to review Little v. Llano is a setback in timing, but not in justice," said Penguin Random House Associate General Counsel Dan Novack, in a statement on behalf of a coalition of major publishers and authors. "We are undeterred and remain committed to defending the freedom to read in courtrooms across the country, including our ongoing challenges in the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. This issue will return to the Supreme Court in the near future, and we are working to establish strong, constitutional precedents that counter the Fifth Circuit's ruling."

"By allowing the Fifth Circuit's decision to stand, the Supreme Court has added yet taken another step in the rapidly evolving and deeply troubling expansion of Government Speech Doctrine," EveryLibrary executive director John Chrastka told Words & Money. "The notion that the First Amendment does not apply in libraries is both an existential threat and a tactical weapon against free expression. Denying a hearing seems to signal that a majority of the Justices are permitting the 'facts on the ground' to shift in ways that favor that doctrine. This means we need to heighten our vigilance against overreach by would-be book banners within the Fifth Circuit and against improper attempts to apply this ruling beyond its jurisdiction."

"By declining to review the Fifth Circuit's decision, the Supreme Court has empowered state and local governments to limit what materials people can access in their libraries. As a result, millions of library users now face a diminished right to read and explore information free from government interference," said American Library Association president Sam Helmick. "The ruling threatens to transform government libraries into centers for indoctrination instead of protecting them as hubs of open inquiry."

"Leaving the Fifth Circuit's ruling in place erodes the most elemental principles of free speech and allows state and local governments to exert ideological control over the people with impunity," said Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs, in a statement. "The government has no place telling people what they can and cannot read."
This is a developing story. We will update as more reaction comes in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Key Texas Book Banning Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The denial in 'Little v. Llano County' lets stand a controversial Fifth Circuit decision empowering local leaders in three states to remove books from public libraries at will, even for unconstitutional viewpoint discretion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Freedom to Read Project, 12/10/2025:  Statement on SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Freedom to Read Project, 12/10/2025:  Statement on SCOTUS' denial of cert

# data[].attributes.headline
EveryLibrary press release, 12/09/2025:  Commentary on SCOTUS’ denial of cert 

# data[].attributes.subject
EveryLibrary press release, 12/09/2025:  Commentary on SCOTUS’ denial of cert 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court's decision not to take up Little v. Llano County is a profound disappointment for the plaintiffs who bravely advocated for their community's right to access books in the public library. We are saddened that residents of Llano County, Texas, will not see the unlawfully removed books restored to their library shelves, and that their constitutional rights will continue to be compromised.

This outcome causes immediate and tangible harm to readers in Llano, throughout Texas, and across the 5th Circuit, who rely on their public libraries as a spaces for free expression.

This denial has consequences that extend far beyond a single Texas county. By allowing the Fifth Circuit's decision to stand, the Supreme Court has placed the civil rights and liberties of readers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi in a more precarious legal situation. We are concerned that politicians in these states and beyond will feel empowered to remove books they personally dislike from public libraries. This constitutes a dangerous shift in the constitutional framework governing our public institutions.

The idea that the First Amendment does not significantly prevent censorship in public libraries poses an existential threat to free expression and serves as a tactical weapon for those seeking to impose ideological control over public collections. We are deeply worried that this distorted interpretation of constitutional law will be invoked far beyond its limited procedural scope.

Beyond the immediate harm to readers in Llano County and throughout the Fifth Circuit, today's decision fits into a broader and troubling pattern in the United States: the ongoing expansion of the Government Speech Doctrine. Just three weeks ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association, allowing lower court rulings to classify speech over a public football stadium's loudspeaker as government speech, thereby limiting its First Amendment protections. In both cases, the Court chose not to intervene while a lower court extended the doctrine into new and perilous territory.

This "wait and see" approach, which allows the facts on the ground to evolve without clear constitutional guidance, creates legal uncertainty that invites abuse. Each refusal to hear these cases emboldens government actors to push the boundaries of censorship while insulating those actions from meaningful First Amendment scrutiny. What is emerging is not a series of isolated disputes but a growing framework of precedents that treats once-protected expression as mere government-controlled messaging.

For everyone working in the realms of free expression and the First Amendment, this trajectory is alarming, extending well beyond the specifics of Little v. Llano. An unchecked expansion of the Government Speech Doctrine threatens to undermine essential constitutional protections across libraries, schools, public universities, and other civic institutions. When government officials can redefine public forums and curated collections as their own speech, the traditional safeguards against viewpoint discrimination begin to erode at their foundations.

Instead of arguing that libraries represent a narrow constitutional exception, we need to return to a fundamental principle that we believe the American public has long understood: the public library is an institution whose primary purpose is incompatible with the concept of government speech. For over a century, library collections have been viewed as instruments of civic life, not as tools for state messaging or ideological control. The Fifth Circuit's attempt to redefine the library as a vehicle for government expression directly contradicts the established public understanding of what a library is and its role in American society.

History supports this understanding. Even during significant national crises like World War I, the 1918 influenza pandemic, World War II, and the Cold War, governments did not take control of library collections as tools for government messaging. Libraries collaborated with public agencies, shared information, and supported national needs, but they did so as independent civic institutions rooted in professional ethics, rather than as mouthpieces for the state. Modern perceptions of librarians as facilitators of access, freedom of inquiry, and resistance to authoritarian control arose in opposition to fascism and state control of information. The lack of government-imposed control over collections, even when it might have seemed convenient, confirms the public's original understanding of the library's role within our democratic republic.

This understanding has consistently been reflected in American popular culture and the history of the civil rights movement. From popular films and documentaries to the hard-won battles for desegregation during the Civil Rights era, libraries are seen as places of refuge, access, and equal participation in civic life, rather than as venues for government messaging. When the federal government has overstepped, as seen during the Red Scare and with the PATRIOT Act, the American public has repeatedly rejected surveillance and coercion in libraries as an affront to liberty. The meaning of this is clear. We must remind courts and legislators at all levels that library collections belong to the public, not to the political preferences of those temporarily in power. Recasting library collections as "government speech" is not a minor doctrinal shift; it constitutes a radical departure from democratic practice and public understanding.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision today, we want to honor the extraordinary courage of Leila Green Little and the other plaintiffs who brought this case forward at great personal cost. Their willingness to stand up for their neighbors, their library, and the Constitution itself has already reshaped the national conversation about censorship and the right to read. Even amidst this deep disappointment, their fight has clearly highlighted the stakes involved. The loss of immediate relief in Llano County does not diminish the significance of what they have accomplished for readers across the country.

EveryLibrary reaffirms that public libraries exist to uphold the public's right to receive information and engage in free inquiry, not to reflect the political preferences of those temporarily in power. We are committed to working closely with local, state, and national allies to counter the dangerous perception that there is no First Amendment protection in libraries. This includes supporting ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions, advocating for clear legislative safeguards, and mobilizing public support wherever this doctrine is misapplied. While the Supreme Court may have declined to act today, the future of the freedom to read will be shaped in many other courtrooms, statehouses, and communities across the nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court's Denial of Review in Little v. Llano is a Misguided Step Toward Government Speech Through Inaction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court's decision not to take up Little v. Llano County is a profound disappointment for the plaintiffs who bravely advocated for their community's right to access books in the public library. We are saddened that residents of Llano County, Texas, will not see the unlawfully removed books restored to their library shelves, and that their constitutional rights will continue to be compromised.

# data[].attributes.headline
K-12 Dive, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS denial of cert 

# data[].attributes.subject
K-12 Dive, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS denial of cert 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The case would have been the first on book bans to be heard in over four decades and is part of a cascade of similar lawsuits.

# data[].attributes.headline
American Library Association press release, 12/09/2025:  Statement on SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
American Library Association press release, 12/09/2025:  Statement on SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court refuses to hear Little v. Llano County: ALA responds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ALA expressed disappointment and concern following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow a lower court ruling from the Fifth Circuit to stand. This decision will significantly restrict the freedom to read in public libraries across TX, LA, and MS.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Library Association press release, 12/09/2025:  Statement on SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Library Association press release, 12/09/2025:  Statement on SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TLA Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision to Deny Appeal in Little v. Llano County First Amendment Case - Texas Library Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly, 12/09/2025:  SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SCOTUS Denies Petition to Hear Texas Book Banning Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed free speech claims in Little v. Llano County last May, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to hear the case, in which a Texas library removed books on ideological grounds.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Tribune, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Tribune, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court clears way for Llano County library book removals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seven residents launched a challenge in 2022 to the removal of 17 books, which included topics on race and gender. They won a reinstatement of the titles, but lost on appeal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hill Country Focus, 12/08/2025:  Llano County celebrates denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Hill Country Focus, 12/08/2025:  Llano County celebrates denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking: Supreme Court Denies Review of Little v. Llano County

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court of the United States has denied the petition for certiorari in Little v. Llano County - the First Amendment book-removal lawsuit involving the Llano County Public Library system.

# data[].attributes.headline
LitHub, 12:08/2025:  Commentary on SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.subject
LitHub, 12:08/2025:  Commentary on SCOTUS’ denial of cert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public libraries in TX, LA, and MS are no longer protected by the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Six months ago, Anthony Aycock wrote a piece for this website called “How a Single Court Case Could Determine the Future of Book Banning in America” in which he detailed a case working …

# data[].attributes.headline
Newsweek, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS declines cert 

# data[].attributes.subject
Newsweek, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS declines cert 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court won’t hear Texas library case: list of banned books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court lets stand a ruling allowing a Texas county to remove 17 library books, rejecting a First Amendment challenge.

# data[].attributes.headline
USA Today, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert 

# data[].attributes.subject
USA Today, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A group of Llano County, Texas, residents asked the county's library commissioner to remove 17 books from circulation in 2021. The books covered topics including transgender issues and slavery.

A separate group sued over the matter on First Amendment grounds. A federal judge ordered the books to be restored, but the decision was later reversed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court's ruling dismissed the free speech claims and said public library curation is a form of government speech. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means the ruling stands.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8 declined to hear an appeal by a group of Texas residents challenging a local decision to remove more than a dozen books from public libraries, allowing the disputed books to remain off shelves.

The matter started in 2021 when a group of residents in Llano County, northwest of Austin, asked the county's library commissioner to remove from circulation 17 books that covered topics including transgender issues and slavery.

The library commission ordered librarians to comply with the demands, prompting a different group of county residents to sue on First Amendment grounds.

A federal judge ordered county officials to restore the books to the library system in 2023, but that decision was later reversed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions apply to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The court dismissed the residents' free speech claims in its May 23 order, saying that the First Amendment does not permit them to "invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books."

The order went on to say that the curation of public library collections is a form of government speech.

"No one is banning - or burning - books," the court said. "If a disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend."

The court said the county was simply making curation decisions, as it is entitled to do.

"That is what it means to be a library - to make judgments about which books are worth reading and which are not, which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not," the appeals court said. "If you doubt that, next time you visit the library ask the librarian to direct you to the Holocaust Denial Section."

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stands.

The issue of banning books has played across the U.S., particularly in public school libraries. More than 3,700 unique books were banned during the 2024-2025 school year, according to PEN America. The organization found 6,870 total instances of book banning in that time period.
Contributing: Reuters
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.

USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court won't hear Texas book ban case, keeping titles off shelves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The decision means that the 17 disputed titles, which cover topics including transgender and race issues, can remain off public library shelves.

# data[].attributes.headline
PEN America press release, 12/08/2025:  Response to SCOTUS denying cert 

# data[].attributes.subject
PEN America press release, 12/08/2025:  Response to SCOTUS denying cert 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PEN America Decries Supreme Court Decision on Book Ban Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PEN America responded today to the Supreme Court decision to decline to hear Little v. Llano County, a case challenging book removals from the Llano County, TX public library, saying leaving a lower court ruling in place in effect allows state and local government to tell people “what they can and cannot read.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Reuters, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert

# data[].attributes.subject
Reuters, 12/08/2025:  SCOTUS denies cert

# data[].attributes.headline
Words and Money, 11/17/2025:  SCOTUS to consider taking case 

# data[].attributes.subject
Words and Money, 11/17/2025:  SCOTUS to consider taking case 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Set to Decide Whether to Hear Key Texas Book Banning Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The petition to the high court comes after the Fifth Circuit, in a shocking decision delivered in May, held there was no First Amendment right to receive information in libraries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Axios Austin, 11/03/2025:  Case could head to SCOTUS 

# data[].attributes.subject
Axios Austin, 11/03/2025:  Case could head to SCOTUS 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas county book ban could go to SCOTUS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court could decide by late November to take up a Texas book ban case.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 10/30/2025:  Llano County files its response (2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 10/30/2025:  Llano County files its response (2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 10/30/2025:  County files response (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 10/30/2025:  County files response (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly, 10/27/2025:  Will SCOTUS take up our case?  

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly, 10/27/2025:  Will SCOTUS take up our case?  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will SCOTUS Take Up Texas’s Book Banning Case?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Publishers and freedom-to-read advocates are supporting plaintiffs in Little v. Llano County by encouraging the Supreme Court to review a First Amendment decision by the Fifth Circuit.

# data[].attributes.headline
NCAC press release, 10/14/2025:  Amicus brief with Steven Pico

# data[].attributes.subject
NCAC press release, 10/14/2025:  Amicus brief with Steven Pico

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAC and Steven Pico File Supreme Court Brief Defending Library Patrons’ Right to Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Defending free access to ideas, NCAC and Steven Pico file a Supreme Court brief challenging censorship in public libraries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Public Radio, 10/17/2025:  SCOTUS appeal and amicus briefs 

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Public Radio, 10/17/2025:  SCOTUS appeal and amicus briefs 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-censorship groups ask U.S. Supreme Court to take on Llano County library case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seven groups representing authors, libraries, book publishers, and First Amendment supporters are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case of book removals in Llano County.

# data[].attributes.headline
PEN America, 10/15/2025:  Press release announcing amicus brief filing

# data[].attributes.subject
PEN America, 10/15/2025:  Press release announcing amicus brief filing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal Brief Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Texas Book Ban Appeal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PEN America has filed an amicus brief supporting an appeal to the Supreme Court in the Little v. Llano County case challenging book removals from the Llano County, TX public library. If the high court grants review of a lower court ruling, it would be the first case on book bans before the justices since 1982.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 01/19/2022:  Letter to the editor (2 of 2) 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 01/19/2022:  Letter to the editor (2 of 2) 

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 01/19/2022:  Letters to the editor (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 01/19/2022:  Letters to the editor (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
09/25/2025, The Llano News:  Petition filed (page 1 of 1, no second part printed) 

# data[].attributes.subject
09/25/2025, The Llano News:  Petition filed (page 1 of 1, no second part printed) 

# data[].attributes.headline
09/24/2025, Mondaq:  Legal commentary on circuit split 

# data[].attributes.subject
09/24/2025, Mondaq:  Legal commentary on circuit split 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifth Circuit Holds That Government Speech Doctrine Applies To Public Library Book Removals, Creating Circuit Split With Eighth Circuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On May 23, 2025, in Little v. Llano County, an en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed First Amendment claims challenging a Llano County…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Daily Trib, 09/16/2025:  SCOTUS petition for writ of certiorari filed 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Daily Trib, 09/16/2025:  SCOTUS petition for writ of certiorari filed 

# data[].attributes.headline
TechDirt, 05/29/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
TechDirt, 05/29/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘There is no political power without power over the archive’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Titles banned, data deleted, the nation’s librarians sacked without explanation – Donald Trump’s war on books is a threat to democracy across the world,…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Observer, 07/11/2025:  Commentary in the right to read, mentions our case 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Observer, 07/11/2025:  Commentary in the right to read, mentions our case 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘There is no political power without power over the archive’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Titles banned, data deleted, the nation’s librarians sacked without explanation – Donald Trump’s war on books is a threat to democracy across the world,…

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly, 09/15/2025:  Piece on Ryan Goellner and others, discusses our case

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly, 09/15/2025:  Piece on Ryan Goellner and others, discusses our case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book Banners Are Everywhere. These Lawyers Are Playing Offense.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Restrictions to reading materials are taking a toll on communities nationwide. These lawyers are helping librarians, teachers, and others fight back.

# data[].attributes.headline
PeopleFor post, 05/27/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
PeopleFor post, 05/27/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Judges Rule that Public Library Book Bans Can’t Be Challenged in Court

# data[].attributes.headline
Education Week, 05/28/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Education Week, 05/28/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals Court Ruling Raises Bar for Challenging School Book Bans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court rejected a challenge to book removals in a Texas public library and overruled a precedent on school library cases.

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishing Perspectives, 05/29/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishing Perspectives, 05/29/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book Banning: A US Court Issues a Reversal in Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A court decision that some say ‘forsakes core First Amendment principles’ alarms freedom-to-read backers in the States.

# data[].attributes.headline
ACLJ  post, 06/02/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
ACLJ  post, 06/02/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Appeals Court Rules That the First Amendment Does NOT Force Public Libraries To Carry Pornography or Inappropriate Content | American Center for Law and Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For over a year, the ACLJ has been fighting to protect children from far-Left groups that want to expose children to sexually explicit content without your knowledge. School districts have been inundated with far-Left lobbying, demands, and lawsuits seeking to force them to include reprehensible . . .

# data[].attributes.headline
MTSU Free Speech Center, 05/27/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
MTSU Free Speech Center, 05/27/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public libraries may reject books for viewpoint, 5th Circuit rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ruling 10-7 in a case involving a county public library in Texas, Little v. Llano County, the appeals court termed library decisions to accept or refuse books “government speech.”

# data[].attributes.headline
LitHub, 06/17/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
LitHub, 06/17/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a Single Court Case Could Determine the Future of Book Banning in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Only one library book ban case has ever been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court: Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico (1982). In 1975, the Island Trees school b…

# data[].attributes.headline
Words and Money, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Words and Money, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In a Stunning Reversal, The Fifth Circuit Deals a Blow to the Freedom to Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a closely watched book banning case, the court held that library book decisions are ‘government speech’ and thus immune from First Amendment challenges, setting up a potential high stakes showdown at the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.headline
Adventures in Censorship, 05/26/2025:  En banc ruling commentary

# data[].attributes.subject
Adventures in Censorship, 05/26/2025:  En banc ruling commentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Right to Read is Dead (in the Fifth Circuit) — Adventures in Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last year I was pleasantly surprised when a panel of 3 judges in the Fifth Circuit ruled against Llano County , Texas, when it ordered the removal of 17 books for ideological reasons. Well, my skepticism proved to be warranted as the full Fifth Circuit just held that there is no right to receive in

# data[].attributes.headline
Jurist News, 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Jurist News, 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Alexandra Bennett | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US federal court upholds Texas library’s removal of books from circulation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday reversed a lower court’s decision to return books that had been removed from the library system in Llano County, Texas. Judge Kyle Duncan, who w…

# data[].attributes.headline
SLJ, 05/27/2025:  EveryLibrary statement on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
SLJ, 05/27/2025:  EveryLibrary statement on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is Government Censorship in its Plainest Form, States EveryLibrary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EveryLibrary responds to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Little v. Llano County decision, which will allow the government to remove or restrict access to books from public library shelves.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Highlander, 05/30/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Highlander, 05/30/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has sent the Llano County library lawsuit back to U.S. District Court.

The 17 judges of the appeals court, based in New Orleans, in a 10-7 split decision ruled Friday, May 23, in favor of Llano County, who fought to keep books deemed "inappropriate" off shelves.

The decision overturned U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman's ruling and ordering the case back to Pitman's court in Austin.

But plaintiffs in the lawsuit say their fight isn't necessarily over because of the appeals court ruling.

Katherine Chiarello, of Wittliff/Cutler LCCP in Austin, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, said her clients are discussing what options lie ahead, and said one of those options includes an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"That's the only other court available," she pointed out.

The seven plaintiffs filed suit in 2021 claiming that their rights were violated when county officials pulled 17 books from county library shelves at the behest of a group who said the books were unsuitable. Pitman issued an injunction in their favor last year, ordering the books back into the library.

However, defendants including the county, county commissioners, the county judge and the library director appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit. A three-judge panel originally agreed with Pitman in a split decision, but one of those judges requested that the entire 17-judge court hear the case.

The majority ruled that library patrons have no right to require the county library to provide specific information, and said it's "government speech" for county officials to decide what books should go on tax-supported library shelves.

In the majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, judges said, "The only sensible course - and, happily, the one supported by reams of precedent - is to hold that the right to receive information does not apply here."

"Take a deep breath, everyone," the opinion admonished. "No one is banning (or burning) books. If a disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend. All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections. That is what it means to be a library - to make judgments about which books are worth reading and which are not, which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not."

The majority opinion concedes that another U.S. court of appeals - the Eighth District, headquartered in St. Louis - ruled contrarily in a similar case.

"[T]he court ruled that the public would not 'view the placement and removal of books in public school libraries as the government speaking.' ... The panel's reasoning? Given the variety of books on the shelves, if the government were the one speaking, it would be 'babbling prodigiously and incoherently.' Unfortunately, we must disagree with our colleagues."

Writing for the seven dissenting justices, Justice Stephen A. Higginson wrote, "Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas. But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County public library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas. In an effort to ratify this official abridgment of free speech, the majority overturns decades of settled First Amendment law, disparaging its free speech protections as a 'nightmare' to apply."

Chiarello did not give a timeline for when a decision would be made on how to proceed, or indeed if the plaintiffs wished to proceed beyond this point.

"We appreciate all the support from the individuals and organizations and hope that continues," she said.

Jonathan Mitchell, also of Austin, who argued the case for the defendants, did not return phone calls before deadline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court rules in favor of county in library book removals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has sent the Llano County library lawsuit back to U.S. District Court.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Insurrection, 05/30/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Insurrection, 05/30/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Appeals Court Tosses ‘Book Ban’ Challenge, Library May Remove Books Based on Content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
‘That is what it means to be a library—to make judgments about which books are worth reading and which are not, which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not’

# data[].attributes.headline
National Review, 06/06/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
National Review, 06/06/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2023—Federal district judge Robert L. Hinkle (in Doe v. Lapado) enjoins Florida officials from enforcing a state law that bars doctors from administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as …

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On the Lit Hub Podcast: Book Bans in Llano County and Community Supported Lit Mags

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A weekly behind-the-scenes dive into everything interesting, dynamic, strange, and wonderful happening in literary culture—featuring Lit Hub staff, columnists, and special guests! Hosted by Drew Br…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Daily Signal, June 27, 2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
The Daily Signal, June 27, 2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Libraries Can Remove Obscene Books, Says Fifth Circuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a new ruling, the 5th Circuit says a library’s decision to remove obscene books is protected First Amendment speech.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, May 29, 2025:  En banc ruling, part 2 of 2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, May 29, 2025:  En banc ruling, part 2 of 2

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, May 29, 2025:  En banc ruling, part 1 of 2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, May 29, 2025:  En banc ruling, part 1 of 2

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, July 31, 2025:  What is a book ban? Part 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, July 31, 2025:  What is a book ban? Part 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, July 31, 2025:  What is a book ban? Part 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, July 31, 2025:  What is a book ban? Part 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, July 31, 2025:  What is a book ban? Part 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, July 31, 2025:  What is a book ban? Part 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 09/11/2025:  Llano County Library System regains accreditation, no re-election for county judge

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 09/11/2025:  Llano County Library System regains accreditation, no re-election for county judge

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly, 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly, 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals Court Reverses Texas First Amendment Ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 23 reversed a district court’s preliminary injunction and dismissed free speech claims in Little v. Llano County, a Texas case challenging the removal of 17 books from a public library.

# data[].attributes.headline
EveryLibrary, 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling statement

# data[].attributes.subject
EveryLibrary, 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling statement

# data[].attributes.headline
The Austin Chronicle, 05/02/2025:  American Short Fiction honors Leila 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Austin Chronicle, 05/02/2025:  American Short Fiction honors Leila 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Short Fiction Gala Honors Llano Literary Defender

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leila Green Little to receive this year’s Community Star Award for her work defending libraries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.
View All posts by Kelly Jensen
In an en blanc panel opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, May 23, 2025, that the First Amendment cannot be used to challenge book removals in three U.S. states. The majority ruling held that library books are government speech and thus, not subject to the Free Speech clause. This was the first loss to the Leila Green Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al. case, where a group of library patrons in Llano County, Texas, sued on the grounds their First Amendment Rights to information and access were curtailed when 17 books were removed in the Llano County Public Library based on their contents.

The 10-7 ruling from the Fifth Circuit, known as the most conservative Circuit Court in the country, overrides the Campbell case precedent, which has been in effect since 1995. Now, the preliminary injunction in the case no longer holds, meaning that in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, books can be removed from public library shelves for any reason. There are no longer rules governing what can or cannot be withheld or removed.

This provides fertile ground for removing materials from shelves based entirely on political motivation and sets up ample opportunity for the development of biased library collections paid for by taxpayer dollars. We have seen attempts to do this in several libraries in these three states, and we will see even more-with success-on account of this judgment. Expect more libraries in Fifth Circuit states implementing wholesale bans on books related to gender, race, and more, as has already been seen in places like Greenville County Libraries (SC), Rutherford County Libraries (TN), and Katy Independent School District (TX).

The majority opinion, issued by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan-a Trump appointee-is laden with the same tone and arguments seen by those seeking book bans over the last four+ years:

We note with amusement (and some dismay) the unusually over-caffeinated arguments made in this case. Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library [...] Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books. If a disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend [...] All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide what books they want in the collection.

This is not in fact what libraries have done for two centuries. Public libraries do more than simply "decide" what books "they" want in the collection. Collection development is a professional task, performed with several factors in mind. Among them are the library's budget, its community make-up, reviews of books under consideration, and both the strengths and needs of the current library collection. These decisions are not made in the library's interests. They're made in the interests of the patrons- all of them, not the demographics with the loudest voices or most connections-whose tax dollars sustain the library.

Judge Duncan also suggests that librarians determining a material is factually inaccurate or educationally unsuitable is indistinguishable from disliking a book's content or viewpoint-a belief that fundamentally undermines and belittles not only the purpose of a library but also the work done by professional library workers.

Indeed, the 17 books at the heart of this case are all on the same themes that have been under direct attack from the right for years: books on topics of racism, gender, and sexuality. In Llano County, most of those books were published for and made available in collections for young readers-indeed, among the 17 books pulled from the collection were three "butt books" and four "fart books." The argument here that a disappointed patron can simply get the book elsewhere undermines the real victims of book censorship yet again: young people who do not have access to online purchasing of books, who do not have access to a car to get to a bookstore, and who do not have the financial means of acquiring the book at all. Young people continue to be the most marginalized, maligned, and overlooked demographic in America. Libraries provide access. Removing books and ruling that the library does not need to provide access to books flies squarely in the face of the purpose for a public library.

That is, of course, intentional.

The decision here is infuriating and flies in the face of prior decisions made in freedom to read cases, including 1982's Supreme Court case Pico vs. Island Trees School District. The dissenting opinion pulls heavily from Pico and points out that their judicial colleagues tossed out that prevailing decision in favor of footnote in a 1982 Fifth Circuit case.

While reading the majority opinion makes clear there is little care to understand the role of a public library, let alone interest in actually defining the nuances of the First Amendment, it is worth spending some time with the dissenting opinion. The judges have a clear vision of what the purpose of a public library is, and they also articulate what this ruling opens the door to in terms of access to information available to the public in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

From the dissent:

Let me finish with the practical reminder that the Supreme Court's nearly-half-century-old Pico test, applied by us in Campbell, has proven sensible and durable, causing neither confusion nor excessive federal court intrusion. The Pico rationale-which applies with even greater force in the public library context-contains ample flexibility for public libraries to continue to make collection management decisions mades on any number of preexisting and standardized constitutional considerations, including accuracy, currentness, and physical condition. Public libraries importantly serve patrons of all ages, and they have broad latitude to provide safe spaces for parents to encourage a love of learning in their children, while respecting each parent's perogative to guide their own child's public library reading and, at the same time, without encroaching on every other patron's First Amendment rights.

Following the judgment in this case, plaintiffs have 90 days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision. The next stop would be the Supreme Court, though the Court does not have to take the case were Little et al. were to appeal.

Because this decision overturns the prior decision in the lower courts, which required that Llano County Library temporarily return the 17 books to shelves, those books may once again be removed from the collection. You can read the full decision here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Politics Can Now Dictate Public Library Collections in Three States, Per Fifth Circuit Ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fifth Circuit ruling will open the doors to rampant book censorship in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin American-Statesman, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin American-Statesman, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5th Circuit overturns decades-old precedent in Texas library case

# data[].attributes.headline
The Washington Times, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Washington Times, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court allows Texas library to remove books that triggered sex, race concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court reversed itself Friday and said a Texas county public library was on firm legal footing when it took 17 books off its shelves amid concerns about racial or sexual content.

# data[].attributes.headline
PEN America statement, 05/23/2025:  Response to en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
PEN America statement, 05/23/2025:  Response to en banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Library Censorship Greenlit in Llano County in Alarming Court Decision - PEN America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Library censorship greenlit in Llano County in Texas in alarming court decision that undermines first amendment

# data[].attributes.headline
News4SA (San Antonio NBC), 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
News4SA (San Antonio NBC), 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SAN ANTONIO - A federal appeals court has ruled that a Texas library is allowed to remove books that spark concerns surrounding race or sex.

On Friday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals released a judgment that overturned a lower court ruling, saying a library in Llano was allowed to remove 17 books from its shelves for issues surrounding both racial and sexual issues.

The court outlined in their decision that the books supplied by a public library could be considered "government speech," and not subject to Free Speech challenge.

Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books. If a disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend. All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections. That is what it means to be a library-to make judgments about which books are worth reading and which are not, which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not.

The appeals decision, written by a panel of circuit judges, says that the conclusion follows the historical tradition of a public library, saying that libraries have determined their collections to "present what they held to be worthwhile literature."

The dissenting judges opposed the ruling, outlining the right of the public to access disfavorable ideas and the already established First Amendment precedent, some of which are previous rulings by the Fifth Circuit, which have now been functionally overturned.

Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas. But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County public library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas.

Much of this ruling comes after multiple books, ranging from "butt and fart" books, to works covering racism, domestic terrorism, and transgender issues, were pulled from the Llano Public Library. The lower court found that these removals were likely motivated by political censorship, the dissent writes.

The full opinion can be read here:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court allows Texas library to remove books based on sex, race concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SAN ANTONIO - A federal appeals court has ruled that a Texas library is allowed to remove books that spark concerns surrounding race or sex.On Friday, the 5ht C

# data[].attributes.headline
KVUE Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
KVUE Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court backs Llano County in battle over book removal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The majority ruled that the public library patrons do not have the right to receive information under the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spectrum News, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Spectrum News, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5th Circuit ruling denies Texas library patrons First Amendment right

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seventeen books addressing racism and transgender topics were removed from Llano County libraries in 2021 after residents deemed them “obscene” and “pornographic.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Bloomberg Law, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Bloomberg Law, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifth Circuit Says No Right to Fight Library Book Removals (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court ruled that a public librarian’s decision to pull certain books off the shelves can’t be challenged under the First Amendment, a ruling that could jeopardize other cases over book restrictions in libraries.

# data[].attributes.headline
San Angelo Live ("news"), 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
San Angelo Live ("news"), 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Court: Llano County Can Remove “Butt and Fart” Books from Library Shelves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW ORLEANS, LA — The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Llano County has the legal authority to remove 17 books from its public libraries, siding with county officials who deemed the titles inappropriate for inclusion on library shelves.

# data[].attributes.headline
KVUE Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
KVUE Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court rules book removals from Llano County library are constitutional

# data[].attributes.headline
KXAN Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
KXAN Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AUSTIN (KXAN) - The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that libraries can take books off shelves based on their content, reversing a district court's decision in a case involving the Llano County Library.

KXAN reached out to the parties in the case, and will update this story if we receive responses.

Katherine P. Chiarello, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told KXAN in an email that their team is considering its next steps.

"It is very disappointing that, today, the Fifth Circuit has regressed from its long standing protection of a citizen's right to receive information under the First Amendment and that it has attempted to create a circuit split by dramatically expanding the scope of the government speech doctrine," Chiarello said.

In Friday's ruling, Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote that the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not grant a right to receive information.

"Yes, Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech. But plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books. The First Amendment acknowledges no such right," Duncan wrote.

The ruling calls this a relief, and that application of such a right "would be a nightmare."

"How would judges decide when removing a book is forbidden? No one in this case-not plaintiffs, nor the district court, nor the panel-can agree on a standard," the ruling reads.

The appeals court also said court precedence holds that collection decisions are speech. In this case, a decision would be "government speech" protected by the First Amendment.

"From the moment they emerged in the mid-19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature. What is considered worthwhile, of course, evolves over the years," said the court. "But what has not changed is the fact, as true today as it was in 1850, that libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes. Their collection decisions are therefore government speech."

The justices also took aim at what it called "unusually over-caffeinated arguments" made by the case's plaintiffs.

"Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library. One amicus intones: 'Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people,'" the ruling reads. "All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections."

It said that readers who can't find a book are allowed to seek the book out elsewhere. The plaintiffs in the case could also try to look elsewhere, specifically to the US Supreme Court, for a potentially favorable ruling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court rules libraries have right to 'government speech', can remove books based on content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that libraries can take books off shelves based on their content, reversing a district court's decision in a case involving the Llano County Li...

# data[].attributes.headline
CBS Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
CBS Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules Llano County can remove books based on content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Llano County’s removal of books from a public library is conditional.The ruling overturns a 30-year precedent ba

# data[].attributes.headline
Fox 7 Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Fox 7 Austin, 05/23/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court rules Texas library can remove books based on content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court ruled that public library patrons in Llano County, Texas, cannot challenge the removal of books and do not have a First Amendment right to information from a public library.

# data[].attributes.headline
Volokh Conspiracy, 05/23/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Volokh Conspiracy, 05/23/2025:  Commentary on en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fifth Circuit on Library Selection and Removal Decisions and First Amendment Rights of Listeners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The primary argument supporting a claimed First Amendment prohibition on public libraries’ excluding books based on viewpoint was the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.headline
Volokh Conspiracy, 05/25/2025:  Commentary on government speech in en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Volokh Conspiracy, 05/25/2025:  Commentary on government speech in en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven Fifth Circuit Judges on Public Library Selection and Curation Decisions as Government Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As I noted yesterday, a ten-judge Fifth Circuit majority held that the Free Speech Clause doesn’t secure a right of readers to access material in a public

# data[].attributes.headline
Volokh Conspiracy, 05/24/2025:  Commentary on Ho's concurrence in en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Volokh Conspiracy, 05/24/2025:  Commentary on Ho's concurrence in en banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Judge James Ho’s Concurrence in the Fifth Circuit Library Decision: Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An excerpt from Judge Ho’s concurrence in the Little v. Llano County en banc decision (he also joined the majority opinion as to listener interests and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No right to information at public libraries, 5th Circuit rules - UPI.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Texas public library did not violate patrons’ right to free speech by removing books due to their content, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled on Friday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jurist News, 05/25/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Jurist News, 05/25/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Alexandra Bennett | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US federal court upholds Texas library’s removal of books from circulation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday reversed a lower court’s decision to return books that had been removed from the library system in Llano County, Texas. Judge Kyle Duncan, who w…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Daily Trib 05/15/2025:  Leila honored by American Short Fiction

# data[].attributes.subject
The Daily Trib 05/15/2025:  Leila honored by American Short Fiction

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly 05/27/2025:  En banc ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals Court Reverses Texas First Amendment Ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 23 reversed a district court’s preliminary injunction and dismissed free speech claims in Little v. Llano County, a Texas case challenging the removal of 17 books from a public library.

# data[].attributes.headline
Daily Trib 03/18/2025:  Accreditation, quotes from library director

# data[].attributes.subject
Daily Trib 03/18/2025:  Accreditation, quotes from library director

# data[].attributes.headline
FindLaw  02/07/2025:  Article discussing censorship lawsuits

# data[].attributes.subject
FindLaw  02/07/2025:  Article discussing censorship lawsuits