# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News 12/05/2024:  Schedule for Baker v. Llano suit

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News 12/05/2024:  Schedule for Baker v. Llano suit

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin American-Statesman 12/03/2024:  AFL fundraiser, Llano county

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin American-Statesman 12/03/2024:  AFL fundraiser, Llano county

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America First Legal got $80k for a Texas book-ban battle. Where is it_

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin American-Statesman 10/15/2024:  Letter to the editor in reply to article

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin American-Statesman 10/15/2024:  Letter to the editor in reply to article

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin American-Statesman 10/13/2024:  Community impact 

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin American-Statesman 10/13/2024:  Community impact 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas town at center of national legal battle over book bans

# data[].attributes.headline
The New York Times 09/08/2024:  Censorship versus weeding, Llano case 

# data[].attributes.subject
The New York Times 09/08/2024:  Censorship versus weeding, Llano case 

# data[].attributes.headline
Book Riot 10/04/2024:  Update on case coverage

# data[].attributes.subject
Book Riot 10/04/2024:  Update on case coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Libraries Under Cyberattack, and More Library News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Never a dull day in the world of library news—here’s the latest on $1 million library ransom demands, an important book ban lawsuit, and more.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News 10/03/2024:  En banc coverage (part 2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News 10/03/2024:  En banc coverage (part 2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News 10/03/2024:  En banc coverage (part 1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News 10/03/2024:  En banc coverage (part 1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Slate 10/03/2024:  Rosalie Stewart to PRH, mentions our suit

# data[].attributes.subject
Slate 10/03/2024:  Rosalie Stewart to PRH, mentions our suit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America’s Biggest Publisher Just Hired a Lobbyist to Fight Book Banning. She’s Got a Plan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An interview with Rosalie Stewart, the new senior public policy manager at Penguin Random House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas county fights to remove 17 controversial library books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the case of a Texas county library removing books from its shelves. Find out why the decision sparked a legal battle and controversy.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Texan 09/27/2024:  En banc hearing recap

# data[].attributes.subject
The Texan 09/27/2024:  En banc hearing recap

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A federal appeals court in New Orleans heard oral arguments this week in a significant First Amendment case, after it vacated its initial panel decision and ordered a rehearing of the case that required Llano County to keep books on library shelves that cover topics such as sex, gender identity, and racism.

More than two years ago, seven Llano County citizens filed a lawsuit against the Llano County Commissioners Court for removing some books deemed "sexually explicit" from county library shelves and removing access to them from the library's e-book and audiobook collection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Llano County Library Book Removal Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A First Amendment case regarding library books in Llano County saw oral arguments presented to the 5th Circuit.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texans for the Right to Read newsletter 09/25/2024:  Coverage of en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.subject
Texans for the Right to Read newsletter 09/25/2024:  Coverage of en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here is your monthly newsletter about the Texas Legislative session and more!

# data[].attributes.headline
PRH and ALA instagram video 09/26/2024:  Interviews about what’s at stake 

# data[].attributes.subject
PRH and ALA instagram video 09/26/2024:  Interviews about what’s at stake 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Penguin Random House on Instagram: “What’s at stake if we let book bans continue in America? Swipe to explore answers from authors and librarians. Follow us to stay up to date and visit prh.com/banned-books for more resources! #ReadBannedBooks #SaveOurStories #BannedBooksWeek”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2,491 likes, 33 comments - penguinrandomhouse on September 25, 2024: “What’s at stake if we let book bans continue in America? Swipe to explore answers from authors and librarians. Follow us to stay up to date and visit prh.com/banned-books for more resources! #ReadBannedBooks #SaveOurStories #BannedBooksWeek”.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Standard 09/26/2024:  Radio interview with Bayliss Wagner about our case

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Standard 09/26/2024:  Radio interview with Bayliss Wagner about our case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Llano Library book ban case could overturn longtime First Amendment precedent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of the books removed from shelves dealt with race and LGBTQ identity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reform Austin 09/26/2024:  Commentary on en banc rehearing

# data[].attributes.subject
Reform Austin 09/26/2024:  Commentary on en banc rehearing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conservatives Hope Llano County Book Ban Case Will Open Up Chances to Censor Libraries- Reform Austin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most important First Amendment cases in America is happening in Texas right now. At oral arguments before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, conservative lawyer Jonathn Mitchell asked the court to discard a ruling that has protected Texas libraries since 1995. If his argument is successful, it would weaken public […]

# data[].attributes.headline
Daily Trib 09/25/2024:  Coverage of en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.subject
Daily Trib 09/25/2024:  Coverage of en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.headline
Law Dork blog 09/25/2024:  Chris Geidner’s commentary on en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.subject
Law Dork blog 09/25/2024:  Chris Geidner’s commentary on en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jonathan Mitchell told the Fifth Circuit public libraries only exist “as a matter of grace”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mitchell argued the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to public library book removal decisions. The appeals court also heard the Mississippi mail voting case.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jackson Walker press release 09/25/2024:  Amicus brief submitted 

# data[].attributes.subject
Jackson Walker press release 09/25/2024:  Amicus brief submitted 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jackson Walker Submits Amicus Brief on Behalf of Prominent Authors and Publishers in Book-Banning Case – Jackson Walker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument yesterday in Little v. Llano County, a First Amendment challenge to Llano County’s removal of books from public library shelves. Jackson Walker’s amicus brief was filed on behalf of best-selling authors Stephen King and James Patterson, the Association of American Publishers, The Authors Guild, and publishers Candlewick Press, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House, Scholastic, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebooks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly 09/25/2024:  En banc coverage

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly 09/25/2024:  En banc coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At an appeal hearing this week in a closely watched book banning case, lawyers for rural Llano County, Tex., told the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that it should strike down a three-decade-old precedent and hand politicians near total authority over what books can go on-or be banned from-public library shelves.

The September 24 oral argument is the latest twist in Little v. Llano County. First filed in April 2022 by seven Llano County residents, the closely watched suit alleges that Llano County officials improperly removed some 17 books from library shelves because they disapproved of the content. In March 2023, Judge Robert Pitman found for the plaintiffs, and issued a preliminary injunction barring the county from removing books while the case proceeded and ordering several books to be returned to library shelves. In June, Pitman's decision was affirmed by a split three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, that included a fiery dissent by ultra-conservative justice Stuart Kyle Duncan.

But on July 3, the Fifth Circuit abruptly vacated the panel's decision, and ordered the appeal to be reheard en banc by the full court. And in arguments before the court this week, Jonathan Mitchell, lawyer for Llano County, came out swinging, telling the court that it should reverse its own holding in Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, a 1995 First Amendment decision involving the attempted removal of a book from a public school library that has long served as an anti-censorship bulwark for librarians.

"Twenty-nine years ago, this Court held...that the speech clause limits the authority of librarians and school officials to remove books from a government-owned library. That holding is wrong and should be overruled," Mitchell argued. "The government has no constitutional obligation even to provide these libraries. And it has no constitutional obligation to include a particular book within a library's collection. The speech laws may prevent the government from punishing or penalizing those who seek to access information and ideas, but it does not require the government to assist or facilitate anyone's efforts to obtain a particular book."

Mitchell argued that "the most straightforward way" to overrule Campbell would be to find that because libraries are public institutions that the books they choose are "government speech" and thus not open to the plaintiffs' First Amendment challenges, because the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral in its own speech.

While some members of the court appeared open to the argument, the judges raised numerous questions-including whether such a ruling would risk turning libraries into "silos of partisanship." Mitchell conceded that was a distinct possibility. He also conceded that there was no case law to support the argument that library curation decisions should be exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. And when asked about a recent decision by Eighth Circuit that rejected a similar government speech argument made by the state of Iowa in a case challenging its sweeping book ban law, SF 496, Mitchell offered little for the court to go on.

"What we recommended in our brief is that the court respectfully disagree with the Eighth Circuit," he said. "I think there's no way to overrule Campbell without creating a circuit split with the Eighth Circuit on this question. And that's unfortunate, but I think that's just the reality."

Mitchell then yielded to Florida solicitor general Henry Whitaker, who, on behalf of 17 states that filed amicus briefs in support of Llano's government speech argument, attempted to support Mitchell. The job of a librarian is to "separate out the gold from the garbage," Whitaker told the court, adding that it would be "essentially impossible to perform that task without giving the government the constitutional authority to make viewpoint-based decisions."

Arguing for the plaintiffs, attorney Matthew Borden called libraries a "magical place where anyone can go and learn about a wide variety of topics," and warned against discarding a 30-year-old precedent that has hardly been controversial.

"The First Amendment prevents the government from getting rid of ideas that it disagrees with. That was the standard that this Court set out in Campbell," Borden argued. "And Campbell has been the law in the circuit for 30 years without a flood of litigation or other difficulties." However, if the court were to suddenly overthrow Campbell and undermine the litany of cases that have protected diversity in library collections, it "would turn libraries from institutions of knowledge and education and learning and ideas into political institutions."

The proceedings then took a puzzling digression as judge Duncan-whose dissent surely led to the case being heard en banc before the full Fifth Circuit-began sparring with Borden over book selection and professional weeding guidelines for librarians.

"The Texas weeding guide says librarians should weed biased, racist, or sexist views, stereotypical views of people with disabilities or the elderly, outdated philosophies on sexuality, marriage, and family life, biased or inflammatory items about immigration, gender or race, bias, children's books with erroneous and dangerous information," Duncan said. "That's the Texas weeding guide. So I ask you, isn't that, in and of itself, viewpoint discrimination?"

The hearing then drifted away from the facts and events in the Llano County case into a strained line of questioning that took up much of the second half of the hearing. After nearly 20 minutes of argument that veered from rote takes about how libraries function to how museums should choose their exhibits to whether Madame Bovary was a "trashy" novel, Borden tried to bring the argument back in the case at hand.

"The First Amendment protects unpopular speech," Borden said. "It protects minority viewpoints in those circumstances where the majority can oppress the minority. That's why you have a First Amendment."

A Losing Argument?

Notably, the "government speech" argument has failed in several recent book banning cases, including in Texas, Arkansas, and most recently in litigation over Iowa's book banning law SF 496, in which a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit soundly rejected the idea that the government speaks through the books librarians and educators choose to make available, noting that libraries by definition should offer diverse opinions, and not just state-approved content.

"A well-appointed school library could include copies of Plato's The Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince, Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels's Das Kapital, Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America," the Eighth Circuit held. "As Plaintiffs noted, if placing these books on the shelf of public school libraries constitutes government speech, the State 'is babbling prodigiously and incoherently.'"

And in July 2023, judge Timothy L. Brooks also forcefully rejected the state's suggestion that public librarians function as state actors in a decision blocking portions of Arkansas's Act 372.

"The vocation of a librarian requires a commitment to freedom of speech and the celebration of diverse viewpoints unlike that found in any other profession," Brooks wrote, adding that the "librarian's only enemy is the censor who judges contrary opinions to be dangerous, immoral, or wrong." Furthermore, though libraries may be funded by taxpayers and overseen by local and state officials, "the public library is not to be mistaken for simply an arm of the state," Brooks observed. "By virtue of its mission to provide the citizenry with access to a wide array of information, viewpoints, and content, the public library is decidedly not the state's creature; it is the people's."

While Llano County's government speech argument appears shaky on the law, the Fifth Circuit is widely considered to be the most conservative court in the land, and library advocates are rightly rattled by Llano County's argument. EveryLibrary founder John Chrastka told PW that if the court buys the government speech argument, it would be as big as overturning Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court case that sets forth a test for what constitutes obscenity.

"Allowing the Government Speech Doctrine to creep into the management of public libraries will upend everything that a public library is supposed to be," EveryLibrary reps said in a statement on the oral argument. "The outcome of this case will set a crucial precedent for the role of libraries in our democratic society, and it must reaffirm that libraries exist to serve the public's right to access diverse, lawful ideas-not to promote government-sanctioned ideologies."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On Appeal, Llano County Seeks Book Ban Ruling That Would Upend Public Libraries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At an appeal hearing, lawyers for the rural Texas county told the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that it should strike down a 30-year-old precedent and hand politicians near total authority over what books can go on-or be banned from-library shelves.

# data[].attributes.headline
EveryLibrary statement, 09/24/2024:  Misapplication of government speech argument

# data[].attributes.subject
EveryLibrary statement, 09/24/2024:  Misapplication of government speech argument

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
www.everylibraryinstitute.org needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Institute for Free Speech podcast, 09/24/2024:  Discussion of our case

# data[].attributes.subject
Institute for Free Speech podcast, 09/24/2024:  Discussion of our case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Public Libraries Remove Books Based on Viewpoint? (Little v. Llano County) - Institute For Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al., argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 24, 2024.

# data[].attributes.headline
Associated Press 09/24/2024:  En banc hearing coverage

# data[].attributes.subject
Associated Press 09/24/2024:  En banc hearing coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Texas county has told an appeals court it has a right to cull books on sex, gender and racism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lawyers for a Texas county that wants to keep 17 books off its library shelves went before 18 federal appeals court judges in New Orleans to argue their case.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spectrum News 09/24/2024:  En banc hearing coverage 

# data[].attributes.subject
Spectrum News 09/24/2024:  En banc hearing coverage 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Llano County says it has a right to cull books on sex, gender and racism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The books in question vary in subject matter

# data[].attributes.headline
KVUE 09/23/2024:  Video about en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.subject
KVUE 09/23/2024:  Video about en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals hearing on Llano book removals scheduled for Sept. 24

# data[].attributes.headline
Book and Film Globe, 09/23/2024:  Commentary on book banning, upcoming en banc 

# data[].attributes.subject
Book and Film Globe, 09/23/2024:  Commentary on book banning, upcoming en banc 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Freedom To Read advocates are feeling the urgency of an election year.

It's Banned Books Week again, and those on the front lines have one request: Fight.

Legal action has expanded to defend public libraries in addition to classrooms, authors have joined librarians in organizing to preserve student access, and intellectual freedom advocates are sounding alarms about Project 2025.

School book bans ballooned to more than 10,000 incidents across the country in 2023-24, according to a new report from PEN America. Florida and Iowa tallied the most incidents, the group said.

"Even as polls show most Americans reject book bans, the number of book bans have made a stunning leap from one school year to the next," said Kasey Meehan, director of Freedom To Read at PEN America. "The rising generation of students are being robbed of books that can nurture and guide them in their formative years simply because a misguided movement has caught the ear of politicians eager to gin up culture wars. Enough is enough."

The American Library Association launched Banned Books Week back in 1982. The most recent wave of bans mushroomed in part due to social media, notes author and BookRiot columnist Kelly Jensen. She's been chronicling censorship incidents across the country each week since 2021, and school districts have banned her own books in response to her coverage.

"What is different today, though, is the emergence of social media and engagement algorithms, which have been an incredible tool for book banners," Jensen told Publishers Weekly. "Imagine that you know nothing about what's going on, but you've heard the words 'book ban' buzzing around. So you go online to look up what's going on, and you're presented a post about so-called inappropriate books in your local public schools or libraries.

"That link takes you to a Moms for Liberty group or some other local far-right political organization-and then the algorithms kick in and begin serving you up a steady stream of similar content in your feed."

Supporters of intellectual freedom are increasingly taking their fight to court. Advocates are eagerly awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals' Fifth Circuit over the removal of books from the public library in Llano County, Texas, just west of Austin.

Back in 2021, a county judge ordered library workers to remove titles like Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen, Isabel Wilkerson's Caste and Larry the Farting Leprechaun. Then in 2022, officials dissolved the library board and installed new members, including two people who'd lodged the initial complaints. Seven patrons sued, arguing the moves violated their First Amendment rights. The county has kept appealing decisions that have supported the plaintiffs, at one point even contemplating closing the library outright rather than restore the books.

This will be the first time an appeals court will decide what First Amendment standards govern the removal of books from public library shelves, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which recently filed an amicus brief in the case.

"If courts allow government officials to pull books out of public libraries in order to impose a government-approved set of views, they're opening a Pandora's box of censorship," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "We're urging the Fifth Circuit to recognize that allowing politically-motivated book removals would fundamentally distort the nature and function of public libraries."

In August, major publishers including Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster sued the state of Florida, alleging that its laws about books squelch students' and parents' First Amendment rights. At issue is HB 1069, part of which requires districts to remove any books that "depict or describe sexual content" or are " pornographic." That section has led to removals of books like Toni Morrison's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. Best-selling authors for young people joined the suit as plaintiffs, including Angie Thomas, author of The Hate U Give, and Jodi Picoult, who has had multiple titles pulled off shelves in the Sunshine State.

It's not just Florida where teachers and librarians are wrestling with the ripple effects of legislation limiting student access. In Texas, school officials have ordered freezes on new book purchases or pulled all classroom books for review to ensure compliance. (One Texas pre-K teacher received a reprimand after she bought a new board book for class with her own money.) The Idaho legislature passed a measure that allows anyone affiliated with a student at a public or private school to sue its library over any book that contains "obscene materials," which lawmakers defined as any depiction of homosexuality or nudity. Utah lawmakers approved a proposal that bans a book statewide if three school districts ban the title.

These increasingly harsh state statutes are fueling concern about federal bans if conservatives are able to enshrine their proposed Project 2025 into law. PEN America and the Authors Against Book Bans advocacy group have both warned about the potential intellectual freedom impacts of the blueprint for a conservative-helmed government.

"Project 2025 is the single most expansive, extreme attack on our freedom to read that we've seen with ambition for federal government implementation," Authors Against Book Bans co-founder Maggie Tokuda-Hall told LitHub. "It follows much of the playbook already established by the right-wing extremists who seek book bans."

Launched in January, Authors Against Book Bans has organized speakers at multiple school board and city council meetings, highlighted opportunities to advocate with various state lawmakers, hosted read-ins at the Idaho state capitol and rated political candidates on their support for intellectual freedoms.

More new efforts to combat bans include We Are Stronger Than Censorship, a partnership of EveryLibrary Institute and the Independent Book Publishers Association. The group launched a fundraising drive aimed at distributing at least 2,000 banned books to impacted areas through partners like the Texas Freedom to Read Project and the Florida Freedom to Read Project. The American Library Association has designated Sept. 28 as Let Freedom Read Day under the Banned Books Week umbrella, with a particular focus on election organizing. And looking ahead, Unite Against Book Bans has designated Oct. 19 as a Freedom to Read Day of Action for libraries, bookstores and community groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned Books Week Issues A Call To Action For 2024 - Book and Film Globe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's Banned Books Week again, and those on the front lines have one request: Fight. Legal action has expanded to defend public libraries in addition to

# data[].attributes.headline
Houston Chronicle, 09/24/2024:  Fifth Circuit hearing today 

# data[].attributes.subject
Houston Chronicle, 09/24/2024:  Fifth Circuit hearing today 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tomlinson: GOP leaders fight for the right to ban books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Attorneys general will try to convince a federal appeals court that the First Amendment grants elected officials the right to ban books.

# data[].attributes.headline
Miami Herald, 09/22/2024:  Upcoming en banc, Florida connection 

# data[].attributes.subject
Miami Herald, 09/22/2024:  Upcoming en banc, Florida connection 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2022, the Florida Department of Education announced that it had rejected 54 of the 132 math textbooks submitted by publishers for consideration for the next school year. TNS

This week, as we celebrate national Banned Books Week, we are painfully mindful that the unprecedented war on free expression in public education waged by local school boards and state legislatures is still going strong.

As we all know, Florida is on forefront of this issue.

Not since McCarthyism in the 1950s have we witnessed as pernicious a campaign of state censorship and ideological control over public education.

Book banning and educational gag orders have been on the rise since 2021, and during the 2023-2024 school year, PEN America recorded over 10,000 book bans nationwide.

Now, a lawsuit in Texas may determine whether or not state governments are allowed to impose ideological control over public education.

Should these states prevail, students will suffer as they are denied books and classroom topics they deserve.

We feel this is the stuff of tyranny, not democracy.

Little v. Llano County, Texas, a lawsuit about Texas book bans in public libraries, is currently under review in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court ordered books returned to the shelves.

The Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments on Sept. 24, including by the Solicitor General of Florida on behalf of 17 " amici " states that also support book banning.

Florida leads the charge for these 17 amici states, all filing briefs to support Texas' insistence that its banning of books is not unconstitutional government overreach suppressing disfavored viewpoints, but instead protected government speech.

If adopted, this position could make state censorship in schools immune from First Amendment scrutiny- an alarming prospect.

Americans should be paying close attention to this case and others in which state governments have the same goal - to bend the First Amendment to a breaking point to allow for discriminatory and censorial policies. Among these 17 states are some of the biggest book ban culprits, including Utah, Missouri, Iowa and Florida.

The Fifth Circuit's ruling depends in large measure on its interpretation of the government speech doctrine, which holds that while the government cannot restrict private speech, it is not limited by the First Amendment when it speaks for itself.

Without the government speech doctrine the government would be bound by viewpoint neutrality and unable to express basic views, whether it's a governor speaking in favor of their own policy or officials lowering the American flag out of respect.

Yet a contorted version of this doctrine has become the darling of state governments seeking to suppress certain viewpoints and ideas.

In and of itself, the doctrine is not harmful but rather a common-sense caveat that allows the government to function properly without being bound by the First Amendment's requirement of viewpoint - and content-neutrality.

By trying to extend this doctrine to public education contrary to Supreme Court precedent, the government could freely exert ideological control over public schools by banning books or prohibiting curricular topics or discussions that it disfavors.

In Pernell v. Lamb, a critical case in Florida involving the issue of government speech, the state was asked by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals if the government speech doctrine would allow for a state university to forbid speech critical of the government.

The state said yes, noting this is the "genius of federalism, your honor." Yet this blatant intent to suppress ideas is why the courts have urged caution with the government speech doctrine.

The dystopian consequences of censorship by many of the 17 states are already a reality. Florida boasts the largest number of book bans in the country of books dealing with discussions of gender and sexual identity, sexism and racism.The adoption of this interpretation of the government speech doctrine by federal courts could lead to even stronger state control of ideas and education.

The future of education and democracy depends not only on courts rejecting this dangerous bid for ideological control - it also rests with Americans making their voices heard.
Katie Blankenship and Elly Brinkley are legal experts for PEN America, a nonprofit that stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide.
This story was originally published September 22, 2024, 9:33 PM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A legal fight in Texas could lead to more school book bans in Florida. Here's how: | Opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now, a lawsuit in Texas may determine whether or not state governments are allowed to impose ideological control over public education.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 09/19/2024:  Upcoming Fifth Circuit (2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 09/19/2024:  Upcoming Fifth Circuit (2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 09/19/2024:  Upcoming Fifth Circuit (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 09/19/2024:  Upcoming Fifth Circuit (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Reason Magazine/Eugene Volokh, 09/19/2024:  Commentary on government speech, book removals 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reason Magazine/Eugene Volokh, 09/19/2024:  Commentary on government speech, book removals 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
“Discard [Library] Books ... That Reflect Gender, Family, Ethnic, or Racial Bias”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Next week, the entire en banc Fifth Circuit will be hearing Little v. Llano County, a case involving allegations of viewpoint-based book removals in a

# data[].attributes.headline
Tech Dirt, 07/16/2024:  En banc granted, commentary

# data[].attributes.subject
Tech Dirt, 07/16/2024:  En banc granted, commentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifth Circuit Is Going To Take Another Swing At Its Extremely Messy Library Book Removal Decision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I supposed the court had no choice, but I’m always a little wary when the Fifth Circuit decides to take another look at some litigation, especially when it involves certain amendments like th…

# data[].attributes.headline
Tallahassee Democrat, 09/19/2024:  Florida SG to argue for Llano at Fifth Circuit 

# data[].attributes.subject
Tallahassee Democrat, 09/19/2024:  Florida SG to argue for Llano at Fifth Circuit 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Florida Attorney General’s Office heading out of state to defend Texas library book bans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“The government does not violate anyone’s free speech rights merely by speaking — no matter what it chooses to say or not to say.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly 09/16/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear en banc case, commentary 

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly 09/16/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear en banc case, commentary 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom to Read Advocates Look to Expand Efforts Beyond the Courtroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a key lawsuit in Llano County is set to be heard by the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, freedom-to-read advocates consider their next moves

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly, 09/14/2024:  Editorial by Leila, Modern Day McCarthyists

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly, 09/14/2024:  Editorial by Leila, Modern Day McCarthyists

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.digitalpw.com/digitalpw/20240916/MobilePagedReplica.action?pm=1&folio=24#pg26

# data[].attributes.headline
Press release, 09/13/2024:  Freedom to Read Foundation files amicus brief

# data[].attributes.subject
Press release, 09/13/2024:  Freedom to Read Foundation files amicus brief

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FTRF, ALA, TXLA File Brief Ahead of En Banc Hearing - Freedom to Read Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Freedom to Read Foundation was established in 1969 as a First Amendment legal defense organization affiliated with the American Library Association.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spectrum News, 09/12/2024:  ACLU amicus brief 

# data[].attributes.subject
Spectrum News, 09/12/2024:  ACLU amicus brief 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ACLU joins effort to fight book ban in Llano County

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The organization filed an amicus brief urging an appeals court to “protect the public’s right to access diverse books and ideas at public libraries.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Llano County Public Library is at the center of a lawsuit that could have impacts across Texas.

HOUSTON - The book ban debate is heating up as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is preparing to hear a case that'll determine how the First Amendment governs the types of books you'll find on your public library shelves.

The focus is on central Texas. In a nutshell, the argument boils down to whether free speech rules apply to public library books or not.

The Llano County Public Library is at the center of a lawsuit that could have impacts across Texas.

Back in 2022, according to the Austin American-Statesman, the library removed a series of books after a group of community activists asked them to be removed after deeming them.

The selected texts were said to contain Critical Race Theory and LGBTQ+ topics.

"It takes us down a very slippery and scary slope for any government official to say the First Amendment does not apply at all. The government can freely ban whatever books we want," said ACLU of Texas attorney Brian Klosterboer.

A district court judge, according to the Statesman, determined the library violated the First Amendment, requiring the books be returned. The argument is now headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Attorney Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief, saying the selection of public library materials is government speech.

A portion of that brief said:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government's authority to "regulate the content of . . . its own message," includes the discretionary selection and compilation of materials for presentation to citizens-the selection of library materials is no different.

The ACLU of Texas filed its own amicus brief. They argue that a book's appropriateness should fall on the reader, not the government.

"It will help all of us to have the courts of hold the first amendment standards that is up to us as people, as parents, as readers to decide what ideas we want to engage within the library. It shouldn't be up to the government to censor or ban books that some people don't like," said Klosterboer.

Paxton's brief added the public tends to view the book collection for a county library as government speech:
"When it selects library materials to make available in a public library, the government conveys that those materials are of the "requisite and appropriate quality" and will "be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community."
Oral arguments are set to begin later this month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public library in Central Texas at center of book ban debate headed to U.S. Court of Appeals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back in 2022, according to the Austin American-Statesman, the library removed a series of books after a group of community activists asked them to be removed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ACLU filed a new legal brief, joining a battle from 2022 when residents sued over removing books that included subjects of racism and gender.

AUSTIN, Texas - A battle over the removal of books from a public library in the Texas Hill Country drags on.

It's all linked to a legal battle in 2022 when residents sued Llano County for removing 17 books that included subjects of racism and gender identity from their public library system. Now, advocates are trying to get all those books put back on shelves.

In a new legal brief filed this week, the ACLU says the upcoming hearing will be the first time a federal appeals court will decide what First Amendment standards govern the removal of books from public libraries.

They say they want to protect the public's right to access diverse books and ideas in these spaces. In 2021, Llano County officials ordered the removal of 17 titles from the library over concerns that they were obscene.

Some of those books had themes involving LGBTQ+ and racial topics like Maurice Sendak's "In the Night Kitchen," "Caste" by Isabel Wilkerson, and Robie H. Harris' "It's Perfectly Normal."

Seven residents sued county leaders for restricting books in the public library system. Since then, a federal circuit court ruled that eight of those 17 titles have to be put back on shelves.

An ACLU attorney, Brian Klosterboer says there's been a wave of book bans and censorship across Texas in schools, but the removals in Llano County were one of the first they'd seen in a public library. He said removing titles simply based on their content goes against the First Amendment.

"It's also very dangerous because they're saying that the government can censor and ban as many books as it wants without any constitutional scrutiny," Klosterboer said.

According to Klosterboer, libraries have historically been places where different ideas and viewpoints are welcome, but says defendants in the lawsuit are asking the federal appeals court to make public libraries immune from First Amendment claims because the "choice to remove books is government speech."

Klosterboer said it should be up to the community and parents who use public libraries to decide what content should be allowed there.

"When Llano County is trying to ban books in an unlimited way, it's banning books also for adults as well as minors, which is flagrantly unconstitutional," Klosterboer said. "So, we're asking the Fifth Circuit to find that the First Amendment does protect our public libraries and doesn't allow the government to freely censor any viewpoints that they dislike."

Klosterboer said the case has the potential to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court and it could have an impact on book restrictions nationwide.

The hearing is set to take place on Sept. 23 at the Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Flagrantly unconstitutional' | Advocates urge federal court to protect access amid Llano County book ban battle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU filed a new legal brief, joining a battle from 2022 when residents sued over removing books that included subjects of racism and gender.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Public Radio, 09/11/2024:  ACLU amicus brief

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Public Radio, 09/11/2024:  ACLU amicus brief

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ACLU steps into book ban legal battle in Llano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations filed briefs Tuesday in an ongoing lawsuit over books removed from the Llano County library.

# data[].attributes.headline
Daily Trib 09/11/2024:  King and Patterson join amicus brief 

# data[].attributes.subject
Daily Trib 09/11/2024:  King and Patterson join amicus brief 

# data[].attributes.headline
Press release 09/11/2024:  NAACP LDF amicus brief

# data[].attributes.subject
Press release 09/11/2024:  NAACP LDF amicus brief

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LDF Files Amicus Brief Supporting Access to Public Library Books about Race and Gender

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA), Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT), and Texas Appleseed filed an amicus brief in Little v. Llano

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly 09/11/2024:  Amici filed 

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly 09/11/2024:  Amici filed 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With a hearing before the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans less than two weeks away, a host of amicus briefs were filed this week in a closely watched case over book banning in Llano County, Tex.

On one side, authors, librarians, publishers, and freedom to read advocates are urging the full court to uphold Judge Robert Pitman's March 2023 opinion and order finding that Llano County officials improperly banned several books from library shelves, while, in a brief of their own, a host of states urged the court to find that local politicians can exercise near total control over which books and materials are allowed in schools and libraries.

The briefs comes after a three-judge panel in June delivered a 2-1 decision largely upholding Judge Pitman's preliminary injunction and ordering eight books returned to library shelves in Llano County. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Jacques L. Wiener, held that the district court came to the "reasonable conclusion" that the books were pulled on orders from county officials "who disagreed with their message"-which, the court held, "is not a valid reason to remove a book."

But on July 3, the Fifth Circuit vacated the three-judge panel's decision, ordering the appeal to be reheard en banc by all 18 members of the court. That hearing will take place on September 24. Notably, it took the initial three-judge panel a full year to return a decision, a delay that puzzled court-watchers given the fairly straightforward facts of the case.

A brief arguing for the court to affirm Pitman's decision includes bestselling authors Stephen King and James Patterson, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild, Candlewick Press, Scholastic, Sourcebooks, and all of the Big Five publishers-Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster.

"Amici write because they and their members are the real speakers here," the publisher and author brief states. "The Banned Books are their speech. These books and the subjects they explore have been among the most frequently targeted in recent years. To protect readers' right to engage with these ideas-and with a diversity of other ideas across the ideological and experiential spectrum-the Court should reaffirm that the removal of books from public library shelves based on official disapproval of the books' ideas violates the First Amendment."

In addition, a host of allies have also filed briefs, including the ACLU, the American Library Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the Texas Freedom to Read Project, and the Texas Library Association.

"Guided by highly trained professional librarians, public libraries have one goal: to provide books and other materials 'for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves' by selecting materials 'presenting all points of view on current or historical issues,' " the library brief states. "The Attorneys General of several states see little value in that promise. In their view, the public library should not be the traditional locus of 'freewheeling inquiry, but a decidedly less free place, where government officials may censor any book based solely on its content or perceived viewpoint."

Indeed, the initial Fifth Circuit decision included a fiery dissent by ultra-conservative justice Stuart Kyle Duncan, who wrote that decisions about what goes on library shelves are in fact government speech and thus outside the reach of the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims. In their own amicus brief, a number of states-Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia-endorsed Duncan's view, urging the full fifth circuit to find that decisions about what goes on library shelves should be controlled by politicians.

"The county's decisions over which books to offer its patrons in its public libraries, at its own expense, are its own speech," the states' brief argues. "The Court should reject the district court's decision to countermand the county's discretion in managing the content of its public libraries, thereby turning a matter historically left to local democratic processes into a federal issue settled by lawyers and judges in courtrooms far removed from the community the relevant library was created to serve."

Notably, that "government speech" argument has failed in several book banning cases in recent months, most recently in litigation over Iowa's book banning law SF 496, in which a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit soundly rejected that the government spoke through the books librarians and educators choose to make available.

"Contrary to Defendants' contention, the Supreme Court has not extended the government speech doctrine to the placement and removal of books in public school libraries," the Eighth Circuit wrote in a brief but thorough opinion. The court held that "it is doubtful that the public would view the placement and removal of books in public school libraries" as the government speaking, noting that libraries by definition should offer diverse opinions.

"Take routine examples of historic tomes on political science. A well-appointed school library could include copies of Plato's The Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels' Das Kapital, Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America," the court continued. "As Plaintiffs noted, if placing these books on the shelf of public school libraries constitutes government speech, the State 'is babbling prodigiously and incoherently.' "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amicus Briefs Filed Ahead of Key Fifth Circuit Freedom to Read Battle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With a hearing before the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans less than two weeks away, a host of amicus briefs were filed this week in a closely watched case over book banning in Llano County, Tex.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Wall Street Journal, 06/23/2024:  Editorial Board commentary on Fifth Circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Wall Street Journal, 06/23/2024:  Editorial Board commentary on Fifth Circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.headline
ACLU press release 09/10/2024:  Amicus brief  

# data[].attributes.subject
ACLU press release 09/10/2024:  Amicus brief  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in Little v. Llano County, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to recognize that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from removing books from public libraries in an effort to suppress particular viewpoints or to impose a political orthodoxy.

The case revolves around Llano County officials' unlawful removal of 17 books from their public library system. In August 2021, local residents asked the Llano County library commissioner to remove certain children's books they viewed as "obscene" and "pornographic" from the library's shelves. These included various kids' books about "butts and farts," as well as award-winning books by acclaimed authors, like Maurice Sendak's "In the Night Kitchen," "Caste" by Isabel Wilkerson, and Robie H. Harris' "It's Perfectly Normal." Not only did the commissioner order the librarians to comply, but in January 2022, the existing library board was dissolved, a new board with the residents who spearheaded the book removals was appointed, and the libraries were temporarily closed to scour the shelves and remove any book the board deemed "inappropriate."

The ACLU's brief argues that such censorship fundamentally undermines the purpose and function of public libraries, which are meant to serve as spaces for free inquiry and the exploration of diverse ideas, not exposure only to government-endorsed concepts or perspectives. The brief emphasizes that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from prescribing what is orthodox even via government programs that necessarily pick and choose among private speech. For example, a Democratic governor could not order the removal of all library books advocating 'Republican' ideals, nor could a predominantly Jewish city council ban all copies of the New Testament to impose a single religious view. Given this, the Court should affirm the court below and hold that government officials cannot remove books from public library shelves to prescribe what is orthodox, to aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas, or to drive an idea from the marketplace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Little v. Llano County | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On September 10, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to protect the public's right to access books and ideas at public libraries free from government censorship.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alabama Reporter 09/11/2024:  Library board in Prattville, AL considering the 5th Circuit dissent as defense

# data[].attributes.subject
Alabama Reporter 09/11/2024:  Library board in Prattville, AL considering the 5th Circuit dissent as defense

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prattville Library eyes 5th Circuit dissent as template for victory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two judges in that three-judge panel found that the removal of 17 children’s books at the Llano Public Library violated law.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 09/05/2024:  the coat of litigation (2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 09/05/2024:  the coat of litigation (2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 09/05/2024:  Cost of litigation (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 09/05/2024:  Cost of litigation (1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
LGBTQ Nation, 07/16/2024:  Overview of case

# data[].attributes.subject
LGBTQ Nation, 07/16/2024:  Overview of case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chaos follows as county bans library books about “butts & farts” - LGBTQ Nation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An anti-LGBTQ+ book banning battle has caused a stink in Texas.

# data[].attributes.headline
08/29/2024, KXAN:  Baker’s case, MTD denied 

# data[].attributes.subject
08/29/2024, KXAN:  Baker’s case, MTD denied 

# data[].attributes.headline
08/28/2024, TPR:  Suzette’s case, County’s MTD denied

# data[].attributes.subject
08/28/2024, TPR:  Suzette’s case, County’s MTD denied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A judge on Tuesday denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit of a Llano County librarian who was fired in 2022 after refusing to remove books that were deemed "pornographic."

Iris Halpern, the attorney representing Suzette Baker, said in a statement that "We are confident that the law is on the side of our client Suzette Baker and all of the other brave librarians across the country rejecting censorship and discriminatory animosity. This is 2024, not 1824."

Baker filed a lawsuit in March, citing in the lawsuit that the library fired her for supposedly allowing "personal opinions to interfere with job duties and procedures."

The removal came after Texas State Rep. Matt Krause sent a letter to the Texas Education Agency recommending the banning of 850 books because of their "sexually explicit" content. These books primarily included themes of race, sexuality, and puberty.

This led the Llano County Advisory Board to identify 17 titles that were on the so-called "Krause list," and it removed them from the system.

The three libraries in the county were at risk after local commissioners considered shutting them down instead of complying with a federal judge's ruling to return the 17 books to shelves. In April 2023, Llano County Judge Ron Cunningham announced that the library system would remain open after a special meeting.

Halpern maintains that book bans are unpatriotic, un-American, and unlawful.

"It's time we stopped playing politics with our First Amendment freedom of speech, access to information, and right to live in a democratic, pluralistic, society that prioritizes individual liberties and intellectual freedom," Halpern added.

Some of the titles initially removed from the Llano Library system included It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robbie H. Harris; They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; and Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen by Jazz Jennings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Judge denies motion to dismiss Llano librarian's lawsuit after she was fired over book ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Librarian Suzette Baker was fired in 2022 after refusing to comply with the library's orders to remove 17 books from shelves.

# data[].attributes.headline
Law360 08/19/2024:  Fifth Cir it rule change right before our en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.subject
Law360 08/19/2024:  Fifth Cir it rule change right before our en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 08/15/2024:  Llano ISD book removals, part 2 of 2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 08/15/2024:  Llano ISD book removals, part 2 of 2

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 08/15/2024:  Llano ISD book removals, part 1 of 2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 08/15/2024:  Llano ISD book removals, part 1 of 2

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News 07/25/2024:  Loss of accreditation 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News 07/25/2024:  Loss of accreditation 

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly, 07/12/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear case en banc

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly, 07/12/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear case en banc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What was regarded as a major victory for freedom to read advocates is once again in doubt after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 3 vacated a three-judge panel's June 6 opinion in Little v. Llano County, with the case now set to be reheard en banc by the full court.

The move comes after a three-judge panel in June delivered a 2-1 decision largely upholding Judge Robert Pitman's preliminary injunction ordering eight library returned to library shelves. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Jacques L. Wiener, held that the district court came to the "reasonable conclusion" that library officials, who claimed that the book removals were simply part of a weeding exercise, were in fact prompted by a handful of patron complaints. The opinion called Llano County's "alternative explanations" for the books being removed "pretextual" and affirmed Pitman's conclusion that a librarian "weeded" the books in question "because she was told to by those who disagreed with their message," which "is not a valid reason to remove a book."

That decision prompted a fiery, strangely reasoned dissent by ultra-conservative justice Stuart Kyle Duncan, who called the majority opinion a "trainwreck" and argued that libraries' decisions are government speech and thus outside the reach of the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims.

Notably, i t took the initial three-judge panel a full year to return a decision on the appeal the first time around, a delay that puzzled court-watchers given the fairly straightforward facts of the case. Under the new schedule, Llano County officials now have until August 2 to file a new brief, with the appellee's response due September 3. Oral argument is tentatively set for the week of September 23.

As we reported in Publishers Weekly, the American Library Association annual conference exceeded its goals for attendance, drawing more than 13,500 to San Diego. Now, the ALA faces two pressing tasks. The first is filling the vacancy for president-elect, after Ray Pun announced he would not be able to assume the role due to health reasons. As reported in American Libraries, under ALA bylaws the ALA council will appoint and confirm a new president-elect by the end of the month. In addition, ALA is looking to hire a new executive director. In her remarks at ALA, interim ED Leslie Burger said the association is on track to have that done by fall.

Also, congratulations to Cindy Hohl, whose term as ALA president began with her inauguration at ALA in San Diego.

In Idaho, local affiliate KHQ News reports that the state's new harmful to minors law is forcing libraries to change their policies. "Despite opposition from the Idaho Library Association, the law went into effect on July 1 and allows any parent, guardian or child to sue a library for damages if they are found to have circulated 'obscene' or 'homosexual' media," the report states. It's hard to see how this law won't soon be challenged in court.

From the Mountain West News Bureau, a new study finds that schools and libraries are seeing unprecedented attempts to pull so-called controversial books off the shelves: "Katie Spoon, a University of Colorado Boulder PhD student and co-author of the study published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nexus, categorized the more than 2,000 books restricted in schools and libraries in 2021 and 2022. 'We noticed that most of the books were children's books about diverse characters,' Spoon said."

In South Carolina, local affiliate WCSC reports that a new rule will restrict which books public libraries can make available. " The temporary law written into the state budget called a proviso, requires county libraries to certify to the State Library that their children's section does not contain any books or materials that appeal to the prurient interest-defined in state code as 'a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion and is reflective of an arousal of lewd and lascivious desires and thoughts - of kids under 13," the report states. "If libraries fail to comply, the consequences could be severe: the loss of their state funding, which some say is crucial for them to stay operational."

Over at Book Riot, Kelly Jensen leads off her weekly censorship news roundup by noting how books about disability are frequently being banned. "July is Disability Pride Month," she writes. " Like with Sexual Assault Awareness Month, it's crucial to talk about in the context of book bans because people with disabilities are also targets of censorship and erasure."

In the New Republic, Melissa Gira Grant has a thoughtful piece on why book bans are a key piece of right's political ambitions. "The prominence of pornography in Project 2025 is no mistake, of course; it's absolutely core to the authors' agenda for Trump," Grant writes. "The attack on porn is inseparable from the attacks on abortion and contraception, on marriage equality and trans rights, and of course on drag queens and library books-all of which, they believe, threaten the straight, married family as the natural bedrock of society. All of these threats, to them, constitute pornography. By calling on the president to outlaw porn, they're calling for the eradication of all these imagined enemies of the family."

Gulf News reports that the Mohammed Bin Rashid Library in the United Arab Emirates will host the first Dubai International Library Conference 2024 from November 15-17. Ibrahim Al Hashmi, a member of the library board, said the event "promotes exchanging experiences and knowledge within a global framework that that embodies rich human diversity and highlights the prospects of libraries in the future, digital transformation, the concept of transforming them into museums of the future, and the latest practices in the library and information sector."

In New York, the City reports that budget woes at the New York Public Library are forcing the library system to cut back on book purchases, including those of critically acclaimed books. "NYPL President Tony Marx said his system plans to purchase 20,000 fewer e-book copies, 6,000 fewer downloadable audiobooks, 40,000 fewer books in English and 6,000 fewer books in other languages than it did last year," the report states. "'Our patrons are experiencing the impact of a smaller collection after the $6.5 million cut we absorbed in November,' said Linda Johnson, president and CEO of the Brooklyn Public Library."

And finally this week, KUNM in New Mexico is reporting that the state library is offering all New Mexicans free online subscriptions to the New York Times. Deputy State Librarian Kate Alderete said in a statement that connecting all New Mexicans to a national and international news source like the New York Times "is essential to the health of a democratic society."
The Week in Libraries is a weekly opinion and news column. News, tips, submissions, questions or comments are welcome, and can be submitted via email. Previous columns can be viewed here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Among the week's headlines: in a potential blow to freedom to read advocates, the Fifth Circuit will rehear its June decision in a closely-watched book banning case; Fresh off a high energy annual conference, ALA now faces some critical decisions

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 07/10/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear en banc, part 2/2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 07/10/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear en banc, part 2/2

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 07/10/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear case en banc, part 1/2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 07/10/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear case en banc, part 1/2

# data[].attributes.headline
AP 07/07/2024:  Firth Circuit grants en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.subject
AP 07/07/2024:  Firth Circuit grants en banc hearing 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A federal appeals court in New Orleans is taking another look at its own order requiring a Texas county to keep eight books on public library shelves that deal with subjects including sex, gender identity and racism.

Llano County officials had removed 17 books from its shelves amid complaints about the subject matter. Seven library patrons claimed the books were illegally removed in a lawsuit against county officials. A U.S. district judge ruled last year that the books must be returned.

On June 6, a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split three ways on the case, resulting in an order that eight of the books had to be kept on the shelves, while nine others could be kept off.

That order was vacated Wednesday evening after a majority of the 17-member court granted Llano County officials a new hearing before the full court. The order did not state reasons and the hearing hasn't yet been scheduled.

In his 2023 ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, nominated to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama, ruled that the library plaintiffs had shown Llano officials were "driven by their antipathy to the ideas in the banned books." The works ranged from children's books to award-winning nonfiction, including "They Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group," by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; and "It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health," by Robie Harris.

Pitman was largely upheld by the 5th Circuit panel that ruled June 6. The main opinion was by Judge Jacques Wiener, nominated to the court by former President George H. W. Bush. Wiener said the books were clearly removed at the behest of county officials who disagreed with the books' messages.

Judge Leslie Southwick, a nominee of former President George W. Bush, largely agreed but said some of the removals might stand a court test as the case progresses, noting that some of the books dealt more with "juvenile, flatulent humor" than weightier subjects.

Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a nominee of former President Donald Trump, dissented fully, saying his colleagues "have appointed themselves co-chairs of every public library board across the Fifth Circuit."

The circuit covers federal courts in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A US appeals court will review its prior order that returned banned books to shelves in Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court in New Orleans is taking another look at its own recent order requiring a Texas county to keep eight books on public library shelves that deal with subjects including sex, gender identity and racism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishers Weekly 07/06/2024:  ALA Conference 

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishers Weekly 07/06/2024:  ALA Conference 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Andrew Albanese and Nathalie op de Beeck |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resurgent ALA Annual Conference Draws More than 13,000 to San Diego

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freedom to read, advocacy take center stage at a high-energy, well-attended ALA Annual Conference.

# data[].attributes.headline
ABA Journal 06/10/2024:  Fifth Circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
ABA Journal 06/10/2024:  Fifth Circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
5th Circuit orders 8 books returned to shelves of Texas library; 'flatulent humor' group not included
Eight library books must be returned to the shelves in Llano County, Texas, as a result of a decision Thursday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans. (Image from Shutterstock)
Eight library books must be returned to the shelves in Llano County, Texas, as a result of a decision Thursday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans.

The appeals court ruled in a First Amendment lawsuit by seven library patrons who objected to the removal of 17 books, including books on racism history, gender identity, sexuality and "butt and fart" themes.

As a result of the June 6 opinion, nine books can stay off the shelves-the seven "butt and fart" books and two books said to contain sexually explicit content and to promote "grooming" of children. The appeals court's preliminary injunction remains in effect pending appeal.

The Associated Press, Bloomberg Law and Reuters have coverage via How Appealing.

The 5th Circuit modified an injunction by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas that had ordered all 17 books returned to the shelves. Pitman had found that the plaintiffs were likely motivated by a desire to limit access to the books' viewpoints.

One judge in the majority, Senior Judge Jacques L. Wiener Jr., agreed with Pitman that all the books must returned.

"A book may not be removed for the sole-or a substantial-reason that the decision-maker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message," Wiener wrote.

A second judge in the majority, Judge Leslie H. Southwick, agreed with Wiener's statement of the law but said the "butt and fart" books do not express a viewpoint and can remain off the shelves.

"Viewpoints and ideas are few in number in a book titled Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose -only juvenile, flatulent humor," he wrote.

Southwick also found defensible the removal of a book on sexuality and a picture book with cartoon drawings of a naked child.

A dissenting judge, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, said decisions on library books are protected government speech.

"The Constitution does not deputize federal judges as the library police," Duncan wrote.

Duncan said the two judges in the majority "have appointed themselves co-chairs of every public library board across the 5th Circuit."

"And so we have a genuine first in the Federal Reporter: federal judges debating whether the First Amendment lets a library remove a book called (I kid you not) Larry the Farting Leprechaun," Duncan wrote.

Wiener responded to Duncan's "library police" accusation in his opinion. Duncan is citing a story by author Stephen King, who is "a well-known free speech activist," Wiener said. King "would surely be horrified to see how his words are being twisted in service of censorship," Wiener wrote.

Wiener was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, Southwick was appointed by former President George W. Bush, and Duncan was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5th Circuit orders 8 books returned to shelves of Texas library; 'flatulent humor' group not included

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eight library books must be returned to the shelves in Llano County, Texas, as a result of a decision Thursday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans.

# data[].attributes.headline
Daily Trib 07/03/2024:  State attorneys general submit amicus brief

# data[].attributes.subject
Daily Trib 07/03/2024:  State attorneys general submit amicus brief

# data[].attributes.headline
Bloomberg Law 07/04/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear case en banc

# data[].attributes.subject
Bloomberg Law 07/04/2024:  Fifth Circuit to hear case en banc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The full Fifth Circuit will take up a First Amendment case involving a Texas library that pulled several books off the shelves that it deemed to be inappropriate, including books on racism, sexual education, transgender identity.

The conservative-leaning appeals court on Wednesday announced it would rehear the case and vacated a divided panel court ruling that largely upheld a trial court judge's preliminary injunction that ordered the library to put the books back into general circulation. It is one of a growing number of lawsuits challenging library and public school book bans or restrictive policies.

The lawsuit was brought by seven patrons of the Llano County library system, who argued that the library and county officials infringed on their First Amendment right to access information when they decided to pull 17 books out of circulation after receiving complaints about their content. The titles include "Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen" and "Caste: The Orgins of Our Discontent"-a No. 1 New York Times bestseller about the history of racism in the US.

The divided panel opinion held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims and ordered the library to place eight of the contested titles back on the shelves.

"Government actors may not remove books from a public library with the intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree," Judge Jacques L. Wiener wrote in the majority opinion.

Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee, authored a fiery dissent that accused his colleagues of stepping into the role of "co-chairs of every public library board" within the circuit's jurisdiction. He said the rules the majority established for determining when a library can and can't remove books would be a "nightmare" to apply.

"The commission hanging in my office says "Judge," not "Librarian," Duncan wrote.

Wednesday's order granting en banc review was accompanied by a letter from the court clerk, which established a briefing schedule over the summer and informed the parties that argument would be heard during the week of Sept. 23.

Botkin Chiarello Calaf and BraunHagey & Borden LLP represent the library patrons. Mitchell Law PLLC represents the county and other named defendants.

The case is Little v. Llano County, 5th Cir., No. 23-50224, petition for rehearing granted 7/3/24.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Full Fifth Circuit to Review Library LGBTQ+, Sex Ed Books Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The full Fifth Circuit will take up a First Amendment case involving a Texas library that pulled several books off the shelves that it deemed to be inappropriate, including books on racism, sexual education, transgender identity.

# data[].attributes.headline
06/23/2024, The Wall Street Journal:  Editorial board commentary on fifth circuit decision 

# data[].attributes.subject
06/23/2024, The Wall Street Journal:  Editorial board commentary on fifth circuit decision 

# data[].attributes.headline
Authors Guild 06/18/2024:  Supportive commentary on fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Authors Guild 06/18/2024:  Supportive commentary on fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authors Guild Applauds Fifth Circuit Decision Protecting the First Amendment in Llano County Library Case - The Authors Guild

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a crucial victory for the First Amendment, on June 6, 2024, the Fifth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction in Little et al. v. Llano County, requiring the public library in Llano County, Texas, to restore seventeen books to its [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Adventures in Censorship blog, 06/07/2024:  Commentary on fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Adventures in Censorship blog, 06/07/2024:  Commentary on fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book Banning and the First Amendment: An Update from Texas — Adventures in Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The massive wave of book banning the last few years has reenergized the debate over whether banning books from school and/or public libraries violates the First Amendment. Just a few days ago, the Fifth Circuit issued the most recent decision in this dispute suggesting that book banning may be unc

# data[].attributes.headline
Fox 7 Austin 06/12/2024:  Video report on fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fox 7 Austin 06/12/2024:  Video report on fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A federal appeals court has ruled eight books that were banned by the Llano County Library must be put back on shelves. The decision follows controversy around the subject matter of the books, and a lawsuit over their removal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court has ruled eight books that were banned by the Llano County Library must be put back on shelves. The decision follows controversy around the subject matter of the books, and a lawsuit over their removal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alabama Political Reporter, 06/12/2024:  Comparison of Alabama’s and Llano’s cases

# data[].attributes.subject
Alabama Political Reporter, 06/12/2024:  Comparison of Alabama’s and Llano’s cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld an injunction against a public library that had removed books about "butts and farts" after receiving complaints from a patron and county judge.

An injunction issued by the district court ruled that the Llano County library must return to shelves 17 books that had been removed apparently due to disagreement by government actors' with the materials' content.

"In August 2021, Llano resident Rochelle Wells, together with Eva Carter and Jo Ares, complained to Cunningham about 'pornographic and overtly sexual books in the library's children's section,'" recounted Judge Jacques Weiner in the majority opinion. "They were specifically concerned with several books about 'butts and farts.' Wells had been checking out those books continuously for months to prevent others from accessing them."

The court found that while "librarians may consider books' contents in making curation decisions ... their discretion, however, must be balanced against patrons' First Amendment rights ... (including) 'the right to receive information and ideas.'

"This right is violated when an official who removes a book is ' substantially motivated' by the desire to deny 'access to ideas with which [they] disagree[],'" Weiner wrote.

There are key differences between this case and a federal lawsuit currently facing the Autauga-Prattville Public Library, but there are some similarities as well as answers to arguments likely to arise in litigation.

The Prattville library policies have supposedly not resulted in any books being removed from circulation; however, more than 60 books have been pulled from shelves and off of the catalog while "under review" with no information about when those books may be returned to the catalog or shelves.

The case in Llano has played out similarly, with the books initially being removed, and then being returned but not listed in the catalog or accessible on shelves. The court found that this does not amount to proper access to those books.

The court also dismissed any argument of government speech coming into play as a public library, an argument that APPL attorney Laura Clark has suggested as grounds to defend the library's actions.The court did agree that libraries may not constitute a public forum where authors have a right for their books to be curated, but said patrons have a right to not have access to materials blocked due to government officials disagreeing with their content.

The ruling cites the Supreme Court's Island Trees ruling that decreed school libraries could not remove books simply due to objecting to their content, as well as two other cases that helped to shape their decision.

The books challenged in Llano were not only about butts and farts-books were also targeted for themes of gender dysphoria and discussing racism.

The lawsuit in Prattville is currently delayed due to potential policy changes to be made by the APPL library board in the next two weeks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas appeals court rules libraries can't remove books for disagreeable viewpoints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are key differences between this case and a federal lawsuit currently facing the Autauga-Prattville Public Library.

# data[].attributes.headline
Straight Arrow News 06/12/2024:  Video reporting on fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Straight Arrow News 06/12/2024:  Video reporting on fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government can't ban books even if they include 'butts and farts,' court says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An appeals court has ruled that several banned books must be returned to library shelves in Texas after controversy in Llano County.

# data[].attributes.headline
Techdirt 06/11/2024:  Commentary on fifth circuit ruling, by Tim Cushing 

# data[].attributes.subject
Techdirt 06/11/2024:  Commentary on fifth circuit ruling, by Tim Cushing 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifth Circuit Handles A Library Book Removal Case And Makes A Mess Of It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There’s a lot of book banning going on right now in the Land of the Free. It’s mostly localized to certain areas of the country — states and cities overseen by bigots who finally …

# data[].attributes.headline
National Review 06/10/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling commentary

# data[].attributes.subject
National Review 06/10/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling commentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Judges as ‘Library Police’ | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the premise that the majority’s ruling is required by circuit precedent, the ruling screams for en banc overruling.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reason, 06/10/02024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reason, 06/10/02024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First Amendment

The court ruled that it is unconstitutional for officials to remove library books with the "intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree."

(Photo 186460383 © Doublelee | Dreamstime.com)

A Texas public library can't remove books simply because they discuss topics like "butts and farts," a federal court ruled last week.

The case is one of the more bizarre instances of library censorship in recent years, but it nonetheless led to a decisive option from the majority, who found that it is unconstitutional to remove library books out of a "desire to limit access to ideas with which they [disagree]."

The legal battle began after Llano County Judge Ron Cunningham received complaints in 2021 concerning "pornographic and overtly sexual books in the library's children's section." The complainants were particularly upset about children's books about "butts and farts."

One of the aggrieved citizens, Llano resident Rochelle Wells, "had been checking out those books continuously for months to prevent others from accessing them."

Following the complaint, Cunningham told the library's director, Amber Milum, to remove the books from library shelves. After more complaints were lodged, Cunningham told the library director to also remove several other books that "depict any type of sexual activity or questionable nudity."

Milum later testified that she would not have removed the books as part of typical curation activities-she only removed them because of directions from county officials.

Making matters worse, in January 2022, the county's library board was dissolved and replaced with new board members. Two of the complainers who successfully pressured Cunningham to order books removed were placed on the new board.

According to the opinion, the new board "implemented several policy changes, including prohibiting Milum from attending their meetings and requiring her to seek approval before purchasing any new books."

Seven library patrons brought a suit in 2022, arguing that the removal of the book was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Eventually, a lower court agreed, granting a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to return the removed books. However, the county appealed. Just this week, a panel of judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs.

Referencing other cases surrounding attempted library censorship, the majority opinion constructed a series of "rules" about how books can be removed from library collections. "Librarians may consider books' contents in making curation decisions," Judge Jaques Weiner Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. "Their discretion, however, must be balanced against patrons' First Amendment rights...a book may not be removed for the sole-or a substantial-reason that the decision-maker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message."

The motivation for removing targeted books from Llamo public libraries doesn't meet this test. The opinion notes that censors wanted the books gone simply because they didn't like their content.

"Government actors may not remove books from a public library with the intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree," the opinion concludes. "Because that is apparently what occurred in Llano County, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas public library can't remove books about 'butts and farts,' federal court rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal court ruled that it is unconstitutional to remove library books with the "intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree."

# data[].attributes.headline
KVUE 06/11/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling, video story

# data[].attributes.subject
KVUE 06/11/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling, video story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 books must be returned to Llano County library system after previously being removed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seventeen books were banned from the library for content including transgender issues, racism and sexual health.

# data[].attributes.headline
New York Post 06/10/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
New York Post 06/10/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This book ban raised a real stink.

Schools and libraries in one Texas region can no longer ban books just because they're about "butts and farts," a court has ruled.

The case came after parents in conservative Llano County complained about books in the public library system, The Houston Chronicle reported, including "I Broke My Butt!" and "Larry the Farting Leprechaun."

Local officials then ordered them to be pulled from library shelves, along with others they labeled "pornographic filth," including a memoir about a transgender teen and two books about the history of racism in the US.

However, seven peeved patrons sued to reinstate the books, claiming their removal from the shelves violated the First Amendment, with a district court siding with them, ruling that books could not be banned or censored by government entities just because they did not like them.

After the initial parent complainants appealed, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction that required the library to reinstate the removed titles within 24 hours, the Chronicle noted.

"Librarians may consider books' contents in making curation decisions," the judges wrote in their ruling.

"Their discretion, however, must be balanced against patrons' First Amendment rights... a book may not be removed for the sole-or a substantial- reason that the decisionmaker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message."

Judge Jacques L. Wiener Jr. wrote in the majority opinion that librarians will still be allowed to remove titles based on existing criteria - like if they are unpopular, damaged or outdated - regardless of content.

The decision will likely cause trouble in some Texas schools as book banning runs rampant throughout the South. According to the American Library Association, Texas made the most attempts across all states to ban or restrict books in 2022 with 93 attempts to restrict access to over 2,300 books.

In the ruling, Wiener also took a stab at the dissenting opinion, written by Judge Kyle Duncan, calling him and Judge Leslie Southwick the "library police," referencing horror author Stephen King's "The Library Policeman."

"King, a well-known free speech activist, would surely be horrified to see how his words are being twisted in service of censorship," Wiener wrote.

"Per King: 'As a nation, we've been through too many fights to preserve our rights of free thought to let them go just because some prude with a highlighter doesn't approve of them.' Defendants and their highlighters are the true library police."

Wiener also said that "libraries must continuously review their collection to ensure that it is up to date" and engage in "removing outdated or duplicated materials ... according to objective, neutral criteria".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas court rules books mentioning 'butts and farts' cannot be banned in schools and public libraries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That's according to a Texas appellate court, which ruled on Thursday that government entities, including public libraries, cannot ban or censor books they disagree with - including books about "butts and farts."

# data[].attributes.headline
ABA Journal 06/08/2024: Fifth circuit opinion

# data[].attributes.subject
ABA Journal 06/08/2024: Fifth circuit opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
5th Circuit orders 8 books returned to shelves of Texas library; 'flatulent humor' group not included
Eight library books must be returned to the shelves in Llano County, Texas, as a result of a decision Thursday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans. (Image from Shutterstock)
Eight library books must be returned to the shelves in Llano County, Texas, as a result of a decision Thursday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans.

The appeals court ruled in a First Amendment lawsuit by seven library patrons who objected to the removal of 17 books, including books on racism history, gender identity, sexuality and "butt and fart" themes.

As a result of the June 6 opinion, nine books can stay off the shelves-the seven "butt and fart" books and two books said to contain sexually explicit content and to promote "grooming" of children. The appeals court's preliminary injunction remains in effect pending appeal.

The Associated Press, Bloomberg Law and Reuters have coverage via How Appealing.

The 5th Circuit modified an injunction by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas that had ordered all 17 books returned to the shelves. Pitman had found that the plaintiffs were likely motivated by a desire to limit access to the books' viewpoints.

One judge in the majority, Senior Judge Jacques L. Wiener Jr., agreed with Pitman that all the books must returned.

"A book may not be removed for the sole-or a substantial-reason that the decision-maker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message," Wiener wrote.

A second judge in the majority, Judge Leslie H. Southwick, agreed with Wiener's statement of the law but said the "butt and fart" books do not express a viewpoint and can remain off the shelves.

"Viewpoints and ideas are few in number in a book titled Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose -only juvenile, flatulent humor," he wrote.

Southwick also found defensible the removal of a book on sexuality and a picture book with cartoon drawings of a naked child.

A dissenting judge, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, said decisions on library books are protected government speech.

"The Constitution does not deputize federal judges as the library police," Duncan wrote.

Duncan said the two judges in the majority "have appointed themselves co-chairs of every public library board across the 5th Circuit."

"And so we have a genuine first in the Federal Reporter: federal judges debating whether the First Amendment lets a library remove a book called (I kid you not) Larry the Farting Leprechaun," Duncan wrote.

Wiener responded to Duncan's "library police" accusation in his opinion. Duncan is citing a story by author Stephen King, who is "a well-known free speech activist," Wiener said. King "would surely be horrified to see how his words are being twisted in service of censorship," Wiener wrote.

Wiener was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, Southwick was appointed by former President George W. Bush, and Duncan was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5th Circuit orders 8 books returned to shelves of Texas library; 'flatulent humor' group not included

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eight library books must be returned to the shelves in Llano County, Texas, as a result of a decision Thursday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans.

# data[].attributes.headline
Library Journal 06/07/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Library Journal 06/07/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a divided three-judge panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a majority decision largely upholding a preliminary injunction ordering Llano County Library System to reshelve several titles that were previously removed.

Nearly a year to the day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in Little v. Llano County, it issued a majority decision largely upholding a preliminary injunction ordering the public library to reshelve several titles that were previously removed.

Leila Green Little and six others first sued Llano County Library System and county officials in 2022, claiming that the library's removal of books dealing with racism, sex and sexual identity, gender identity, and juvenile humor violated their First Amendment right to receive information. In March 2023, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered the library to put the books back into general circulation. Llano County officials appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

In a divided panel, Judge Jacques L. Wiener authored the majority opinion, stating, "Government actors may not remove books from a public library with the intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree." Judge Leslie Southwick concurred with Wiener but argued that some of books targeted for removal contained "only juvenile, flatulent humor," writing, "I do not find those books were removed on the basis of a dislike for the ideas within them when it has not been shown the books contain any ideas with which to disagree."

Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan's strongly worded dissent argued that library collection decisions are protected government speech. He accused his colleagues of creating a "nightmare" of rules for libraries, writing, "And who will apply these rules? Federal judges, naturally. You've heard of the Soup Nazi? Say hello to the Federal Library Police."

Of the 17 titles removed from Llano County library shelves, eight must be returned, including "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents," by Isabel Wilkerson, "Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen," by Jazz Jennings, and "Freakboy," by Kristen Elizabeth Clark.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals Court Affirms Decision to Return Books to Llano County Library Shelves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly a year to the day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in Little v. Llano County, it issued a majority decision largely upholding a preliminary injunction ordering the public library to reshelve several titles that were previously removed.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Guardian 06/09/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Guardian 06/09/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An appellate court has ruled that Texas cannot ban books from libraries simply because they mention "butt and fart" and other content which some state officials may dislike.

The fifth US circuit court of appeals issued its decision on Thursday in a 76-page majority opinion, which was written by Judge Jacques Wiener Jr and opened with a quote from American poet Walt Whitman: "The dirtiest book in all the world is the expurgated book."

In its decision, the appellate court declared that "government actors may not remove books from a public library with the intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree".

It added: "This court has declared that officials may not 'remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the idea contained in those books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.'"

The appellate court's latest decision follows a federal lawsuit filed in 2022 by seven Llano county residents against county and library officials for restricting and removing books from its public circulation.

The residents argued that the defendants violated their constitutional right to "access information and ideas" by removing 17 books based on their content and messages.

Those books include seven "butt and fart" books with titles including I Broke My Butt! and Larry the Farting Leprechaun, four young adult books on sexuality, gender identity and dysphoria - including Being Jazz: My Life As a (Transgender) Teen - and two books on the history of racism in the US, among them Caste and They Called Themselves the KKK.

Other books targeted by the ban were In the Night Kitchen, which contains cartoons of a naked child, as well as It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health, according to court documents.

The books were removed after parents complained, with library officials referring to the books as "pornographic filth".

In its majority decision, the overwhelmingly conservative appellate court ordered eight of the 17 books to be returned, including Being Jazz: My Life As a (Transgender) Teen, Caste and They Called Themselves the KKK.

Wiener wrote how a dissenting opinion from the Donald Trump appointee Kyle Duncan "accuses us of becoming the 'Library Police,' citing a story by author Stephen King".

"But King, a well-known free speech activist, would surely be horrified to see how his words are being twisted in service of censorship," wrote Wiener, whop was appointed during George HW Bush's presidency.

"Per King: 'As a nation, we've been through too many fights to preserve our rights of free thought to let them go just because some prude with a highlighter doesn't approve of them.' Defendants and their highlighters are the true library police."

Wiener also said that "libraries must continuously review their collection to ensure that it is up to date" and engage in "removing outdated or duplicated materials ... according to objective, neutral criteria".

In a report released last October, the American Library Association found that Texas made the most attempts in the US to ban or restrict books in 2022. In total, the state made 93 attempts to restrict access to more than 2,300 books.

A wave of book banning has also emerged in Florida as part of the culture wars of the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, on "wokeism," a term meant to insult liberal values.

In January, a Florida school district removed dictionaries, encyclopedias and other books because the texts included descriptions of "sexual conduct".

Meanwhile, in 2022, a Mississippi school district upheld the firing of an assistant principal after he read a humorous children's book, I Need a New Butt, to his students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appeals court tells Texas it cannot ban books for mentioning 'butt and fart'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conservative-dominated court restores books denounced by officials as 'pornographic filth' to school libraries

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin American-Statesman 06/08/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin American-Statesman 06/08/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A former librarian is suing Llano County in the Texas Hill Country region for firing her after she refused to remove books with content related to race and LGBTQ+ experiences, according to a complaint obtained exclusively by the American-Statesman in advance of the case's filing Monday.

The lawsuit highlights the impact of increased censorship of literature across the country in rural communities such as Llano and Kingsland, where free access to information remains in jeopardy despite a federal court's 2023 order that Llano County restore titles it had removed from its shelves.

Plaintiff Suzette Baker, a Texas native, was the head librarian at the Kingsland Public Library, about 65 miles northwest of Austin. She is suing the county, the county Commissioners Court, County Judge Ron Cunningham and several community activists who were appointed to the Library Advisory Board during the push for book removals, arguing that they terminated her employment to discriminate against minority groups through book bans and suppressed her First Amendment rights as well as those of other residents.

A veteran and mother of five adult children, she had more than a decade of experience as a librarian before joining the library and loved her job, which she considered her life's calling.

Reading "teaches you empathy. It teaches you how to be a human," she said in a phone interview with the Statesman.

Baker, 57, now works as a cashier at a hardware store in town, she said, "trying to make ends meet."

According to the lawsuit, tension over library materials in Llano County began when a group of community activists demanded that the library remove several specific titles from the children's and teens' sections during the summer of 2021, deeming them "inappropriate."

In November 2021, community member Bonnie Wallace sent a spreadsheet with about 60 books to Llano County Library Director Amber Milum and asked that librarians remove "all books that depict any type of sexual activity or questionable nudity" entirely. Milum directed Baker to remove the books, but Baker refused.

The group's efforts to have books on racial or LGBTQ+ topics removed from the public library continued to escalate. Some were children's books they deemed inappropriate, such as "I Broke My Butt." Others were award-winning adult nonfiction books, including "They Called Themselves the KKK: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group" and "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents." Another was "Gender Queer," a book recommended for ages 15 and above. The library serves community members of all ages and books are labeled to indicate recommended age range.

In January 2022, the Commissioners Court, Cunningham and Commissioner Jerry Don Moss voted to dissolve the county's library advisory board and appoint 12 new members, all of whom were part of the community group pushing for book removals, the lawsuit says. Milum told librarians they were prohibited from attending public meetings, even during their time off. The lawsuit argues that this constituted suppression of Baker's First Amendment rights.

In March 2022, Baker put up a display including historically banned books such as "How to be an Anti-Racist," "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Between the World and Me," and some books from the group's spreadsheet. She also spelled out "We put the 'lit' in literature," on a marquee in front of the library, which the lawsuit describes as "a double entendre referring to 'lit' as both the slang word for fun and to the historical burning of books."

Milum asked Baker to remove the books on the spreadsheet from the display and terminated Baker's employment shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit. She cited "insubordination," "failure to follow instructions" and "allowing personal opinions to interfere with job duties and procedures" among the reasons Baker was removed.
More: Llano County libraries will remain open amid ongoing lawsuit over certain banned books
Milum and Cunningham did not immediately respond to the Statesman's requests for comment.

Moss, a defendant in the lawsuit, said the Commissioners Court does not determine whether librarians are hired or fired and that he had no role in or knowledge of the decision.

"The first thing I heard about Ms. Baker being terminated was on Facebook," he said in a phone call with the Statesman.

Moss said the Commissioners Court never voted to have books removed. He also said the court was not aware of books being removed, and that he had not seen any of the 17 books listed in the federal lawsuit before he was served with the papers.

The lawsuit says Milum removed books based on their content, violating the library system's weeding policies, by which books that have not been checked out for several years, are in poor physical condition or are outdated are taken out of circulation. Moss said the commissioners had no part in the weeding process.

A group of Llano County residents who opposed the censorship filed a lawsuit in April 2022. A judge for the Western District of Texas ruled the court had violated First Amendment rights and issued a preliminary injunction that ordered the county to replace numerous books in April 2023, including "In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak, "Shine" by Lauren Myracle and "Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen" by Jazz Jennings.

The county appealed the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending.

After the court order came down, members of the pro-removal group demanded that the county close the libraries altogether to prevent children from accessing what they called "pornographic filth," the Statesman reported. Dozens of people attended a Commissioners Court meeting convened by Cunningham over the issue, with more than half urging the county to keep the public institutions open. Baker was one of the 15 speakers to address the Commissioners Court.

"This is not a communist nation," Baker told the commissioners. "This is not a Nazi nation. You do not get to pick our reading material. It is ours."

The libraries remained open, but Baker said she has watched as the library has become less accessible to the public. The county has not hired a new librarian to replace Baker and operates with one full-time and one part-time librarian, compared with three full-time librarians in 2021. And though the libraries used to be open on Saturdays, they are now closed on weekends.

"The library cannot function with the skeletal staff that it has now," Baker said.

The county also has frozen book purchases since 2021 and blocked access to more than 17,000 digital titles, the lawsuit states.

Attorney Iris Halpern, who represented a Colorado librarian in a successful wrongful termination suit under similar circumstances, said Llano County's tactics represent a dangerous disregard for residents' access to information.

"This is incredibly dangerous because it seems the larger agenda here is to just deprive people of information, period," Halpern said. "There is no investment in making sure that we have a healthy democracy and healthy communication and sharing of ideas, healthy spaces for learning about new topics, or to engage in debate."

The complaint argues that Baker was wrongfully terminated and that the defendants violated civil rights laws as well as employment laws in addition to suppressing Baker's First Amendment rights, causing her "severe emotional distress and pain." The complaint seeks back pay, attorney's fees and an injunction ordering the county to cease from behavior that discriminates against minorities and suppresses residents' First Amendment rights.

Baker says her main hope for the lawsuit is that a judge will affirm that resisting orders to remove books was "the right thing to do." She also hopes she can return to the job she loves.

Still caught in the crossfires of a national culture war, Baker said she sees parallels with her time as a diesel mechanic in the Army.
Statesman staff writer and investigative editor Tony Plohetski contributed to this report. Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect that "Gender Queer" is a book recommended for ages 15 and above. It was erroneously referred to as a children's book.
"I stood up and said I would give up to my life to protect the Constitution," she said. "And I will."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EXCLUSIVE: Former librarian, fired after refusing to remove books, sues Llano County

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A former librarian is suing Llano County officials for firing her after she refused to remove books, including "They Called Themselves the KKK."

# data[].attributes.headline
Bloomberg Law 06/06/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Bloomberg Law 06/06/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Texas public library must reshelve eight books, including LGBTQ+, sex ed, and racism topics, it removed from circulation, after a ruling by a hotly divided federal appeals court panel.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, known for its slate of conservative justices, on Thursday found the First Amendment rights of public library patrons limits which books libraries are allowed to remove based on objections to the book's content.

The court modified, but largely upheld, a preliminary injunction granted in March 2023 by Judge Robert Pitman of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, who had ordered the library to put the books back into general circulation.

But in a strongly worded dissent, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee, accused his two colleagues on the panel of creating a "train wreck" of rules to determine when a library can and can't remove books.

"And who will apply these rules?," Duncan said. "Federal judges, naturally. You've heard of the Soup Nazi? Say hello to the Federal Library Police."

He argued that libraries' decisions about which books to keep and remove are protected government speech.

Leila Green Little and six others sued Llano County Library System and county officials in 2022. The patrons said removal of the books violated their First Amendment right to receive information.

The books include "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent" by Isabel Wilkerson; "Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen" by Jazz Jennings; books related to sex education and bodily functions including "It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health" by Robie Harris; and a series of children's books that make jokes about flatulence.

The majority opinion, authored by Judge Jacques L. Wiener, said the district court came to the reasonable conclusion that the defendants targeted and removed books-including well-regarded, prize-winning books-based on complaints that the books were inappropriate.

Judge Leslie H. Southwick concurred with Wiener, but found that the library is allowed to remove three of the books at issue.

Major US publishers, free-speech groups, and library associations submitted friend-of-court briefs backing the patrons.

Legal Challenges Increasing

The Llano County suit is part of a growing number of lawsuits challenging library book bans or restrictive policies.

In December last year, a federal judge blocked enforcement of an Iowa law that requires books to be removed from public school libraries if they contain a description of a sex act.

A panel of Fifth Circuit judges heard oral arguments in November in a case challenging a Texas law that requires booksellers to assign sex-content rating to titles sold to public schools.

In September, Arkansas library patrons advanced their suit against a county library system that allegedly infringed their First Amendment rights by moving kids' books with LGBTQ+ themes from the children's area into a special section where they can only be accessed with adult supervision.

An Arkansas law making it a crime for librarians and book sellers to make books deemed "harmful to minors" available to them was blocked in July by a federal judge while a constitutional challenge proceeds.

The American Library Association recently reported preliminary data showing a record surge of challenges in 2023, the vast majority of which involve books written by or about a person of color or a member of the LGBTQ+ community.

PEN America, a group dedicated to preservation of free expression, found 3,362 instances of individual books banned, affecting 1,557 titles, in the 2022-2023 school year. This represents an increase of 33% from the 2021-22 school year, it said.

BraunHagey & Borden LLP and Botkin Chiarello Calaf PLLC represent the plaintiffs. Jonathan F. Mitchell of Austin represents the library and officials.

The case is Little v. Llano County, 5th Cir., No. 23-50224, 6/6/24.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas Library Must Reshelve Controversial Books, 5th Cir. Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Texas public library must reshelve eight books, including LGBTQ+, sex ed, and racism topics, it removed from circulation, after a ruling by a hotly divided federal appeals court panel.

# data[].attributes.headline
Associated Press/ABC 06/06/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Associated Press/ABC 06/06/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW ORLEANS -- Eight books dealing with subjects including racism and transgender issues must be returned to library shelves in a rural Texas county that had removed them in an ongoing book banning controversy, a divided panel of three federal appeals court judges ruled Thursday.

It was a partial victory for seven library patrons who sued numerous officials with the Llano County library system and the county government after 17 books were removed. In Thursday's opinion from a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, one judge voted to uphold a lower court order that the books should be returned. Another largely agreed but said nine of the books could stay off the shelves as the appeal plays out.

A third dissented entirely, meaning a majority supported returning eight books.

In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ordered 17 books returned to Kingsland library shelves while a citizen lawsuit against book banning proceeded. The works ranged from children's books to award-winning nonfiction, including "They Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group," by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; and "It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health," by Robie Harris.

The ruling from Pitman, nominated to the federal court by former President Barack Obama, was on hold during the appeal. Thursday's ruling was a preliminary injunction, and more court proceedings are likely.

The main opinion was by Judge Jacques Wiener, nominated to the court by former President George H. W. Bush. Wiener said the books were clearly removed at the behest of county officials who disagreed with the books' messages.

"But a book may not be removed for the sole - or a substantial - reason that the decisionmaker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message," Wiener wrote.

Judge Leslie Southwick, a nominee of former President George W. Bush, agreed, partially. He argued that some of the removals might stand a court test as the case progresses, noting that some of the books dealt more with "juvenile, flatulent humor" than weightier subjects.

"I do not find those books were removed on the basis of a dislike for the ideas within them when it has not been shown the books contain any ideas with which to disagree," Southwick wrote.

Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a nominee of former President Donald Trump, dissented fully. "The commission hanging in my office says 'Judge,' not 'Librarian.' " Duncan wrote. "Imagine my surprise, then, to learn that my two esteemed colleagues have appointed themselves co-chairs of every public library board across the Fifth Circuit."

The circuit covers federal courts in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Texas county removed 17 books from its libraries. An appeals court says eight must be returned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal appeals court says eight books dealing with subjects including racism and transgender issues must be returned to library shelves in a rural Texas county that had removed them

# data[].attributes.headline
The Daily Trib 06/07/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
The Daily Trib 06/07/2024:  Fifth circuit ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Library patrons sued after 17 titles were removed, including books that deal with racism and transgender issues.

LLANO, Texas - A panel of federal appeals court judges have ruled that eight books dealing with subjects including racism and transgender issues must be returned to library shelves in Llano County.

The Associated Press (AP) reports the ruling is a partial victory for seven library patrons who sued numerous library system officials and the county government after 17 books were removed from shelves.

In Thursday's opinion from a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge voted to uphold a lower court order stating the books should be returned. Another judge largely agreed but said nine of the books could stay off shelves as the appeal plays out. The third judge dissented entirely.

Back in March 2023, a U.S. district judge ordered the 17 books be returned to library shelves while a citizen lawsuit against book banning proceeded. That ruling was on hold during the appeal. Thursday's ruling by the panel of judges was a preliminary injunction and more court proceedings are likely, according to the AP.

The main opinion from Thursday's ruling was stated by Judge Jacques Wiener, who said the books were clearly removed at the behest of Llano County officials who disagreed with their messages.

"But a book may not be removed for the sole - or a substantial - reason that the decisionmaker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message," Wiener wrote.

The judge who partially agreed, Judge Leslie Southwick, argued some of the book removals might stand a court test as the case progresses, saying some of the books don't really deal with serious subjects.

"I do not find those books were removed on the basis of a dislike for the ideas within them when it has not been shown the books contain any ideas with which to disagree," Southwick wrote.

The judge who dissented fully was Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, who wrote, "The commission hanging in my office says 'Judge,' not 'Librarian.' Imagine my surprise, then, to learn that my two esteemed colleagues have appointed themselves co-chairs of every public library board across the Fifth Circuit."

Below is some of KVUE's previous coverage of the book removals in Llano County:
KVUE on social media: Facebook | X | Instagram | YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal appeals court judges say Llano County must return eight books to library shelves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A panel of federal appeals court judges have ruled that eight books must be returned to library shelves in Llano County, Texas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stephen Vladeck substack 06/10/2024:  Commentary on length of administrative stay

# data[].attributes.subject
Stephen Vladeck substack 06/10/2024:  Commentary on length of administrative stay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome back to "One First," a weekly newsletter that aims to make the U.S. Supreme Court more accessible to all of us.

Every Monday, I'll be offering an update on goings-on at the Court (" On the Docket"); a longer introduction to some feature of the Court's history, current work, or key players (" The One First 'Long Read'"); and some Court-related trivia. If you're enjoying the newsletter, I hope you'll consider sharing it (and subscribing if you don't already):

This week's "Long Read" was prompted by two different decisions by the Fifth Circuit last week, both of which can fairly be described as not the type of ruling for which that court has become famous. What is striking about each is not their results, but the length of time prior to those decisions during which an "administrative stay" had been in effect-8.5 months in one, and over a year in the other. Folks might remember Justice Barrett's warning, back in March, that "administrative stays" (as opposed to stays pending appeal) should last no longer than is necessary to allow the court to resolve a stay pending appeal. Apparently, that message still has not been received by the Fifth Circuit-which will continue to cause mischief both in ideologically charged cases and others.

But first, the news.

The first week of June was still pretty modest by the Supreme Court's standards. Last Monday's Order List brought a single new grant of certiorari-in one of those cases that lawyers (and few else) will find interesting. The specific question in Delligatti v. United States is whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. In other words, can someone "use" force even in committing a crime (that results in bodily injury or death) in which their culpability comes from not doing something? Lower courts are divided on the matter; the Supreme Court will consider it this fall.

Yes, this is the point in the newsletter where I point out how far behind the Court (still) is in taking cases for the October 2024 Term. Going into today's Order List, the total stands at 10. That's barely enough to fill the October argument calendar, let alone the November and December calendars-both of which the Court usually fills before rising for its summer recess at the end of June. I've written before about this phenomenon; suffice it to say, it hasn't abated. Maybe, based on cases that have been " relisted," there will be a surge of grants in today's Order List; we'll see.

The Court also handed down another trio of opinions last Thursday, only one of which divided the justices:

First, in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Justice Sotomayor wrote for an 8-0 Court in holding that insurers who are responsible for claims that are part of a bankruptcy proceeding are a "party in interest" entitled to participate in that proceeding under federal bankruptcy law. (This case is a good example of why I'm wary of efforts to compare the number of unanimous rulings to the number of divided ones; some cases ... just aren't that hard or divisive.)

If you thought that case was exciting, then there was Connelly ex rel. Connelly v. United States, in which Justice Thomas held for a unanimous Court that "A corporation's contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation's value for purposes of the federal estate tax." Definitely one for the history books.

The Court divided more sharply in v. Northern Arapaho Tribe-a pair of consolidated cases about funding for tribal health care. The Indian Health Service-an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services-is generally required by federal law to provide health services to Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. But tribes may contract with IHS to provide their own services and then be reimbursed by IHS not just for what IHS would've spent to do the same, but for "contract support costs" the tribes incur. The question that arose is whether tribes can recover "contract support costs" even when they're also receiving financing from elsewhere. For a 5-4 Court, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, said "yes," relying on the text of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. In other words, a big win for tribes at the expense of the federal government (which may explain why it was Justice Gorsuch who provided the fifth vote). Justice Kavanaugh wrote the dissent on behalf of himself and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, reading the statute ... differently, at least largely because of the significant financial consequences the majority's decision could produce.

Although those three decisions took the Court over the halfway mark for the current term, they only just did so-and, Becerra notwithstanding, with none of the major cases that have continued to back up. Barring some surprise, the Court isn't slated to issue decisions in argued cases again until Thursday at 10:00 ET. Perhaps the Court will also add a decision day on Friday, but with or without a second day this week, that'll still leave a heck of a lot of rulings for what, at least as of now, are supposed to be the last two weeks of the term.

Oy.

Finally, Friday also brought the publication of required financial disclosure reports (yes, they're really called "FDRs") from eight of the nine justices (Justice Alito received an extension for his). The big news wasn't just the 2023 data; it was Justice Thomas's belated amendments to his 2019 report to include some (but not all) of the hospitality previously reported by ProPublica. There's a lot more to say about these reports in general, and Thomas's, specifically, but I'll save them for another day.

In March, I wrote about Justice Barrett's concurrence in the SB4 case-in which the Court allowed Texas's controversial new state-level deportation law to go into effect (briefly, as it turned out), with Justice Barrett explaining for herself and Justice Kavanaugh that they were voting to do so entirely because the Fifth Circuit had issued only an "administrative stay" of the district court's injunction, not a "stay pending appeal." (That post also walked through why these similar-sounding orders are meaningfully different.) In the process, Justice Barrett also issued a warning to all lower courts, but especially the Fifth Circuit: "An administrative stay should last no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for a stay pending appeal" (emphasis added). In other words, if lower courts issued "proper" administrative stays, Barrett and Kavanaugh would generally leave those intact-but only if they were the "right" kind of administrative stay.

Two decisions from last week illustrate the extent to which the Fifth Circuit has not apparently gotten that message-even in cases without clearly ideological results. On Thursday, a 2-1 panel affirmed a preliminary injunction against Llano County, Texas's book ban, holding that the ban is content-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. One day later, a unanimous panel granted a stay pending appeal of a district court order that would've required lawyers for Southwest Airlines to undergo religious liberty training ( by the Alliance Defending Freedom) as a sanction for a civil contempt finding.

What's telling about both of these cases is how long an "administrative stay" had been pending each: In the Llano County case, a temporary stay of subsequent district court proceedings had been in place since May 16 ... 202 3(!). In the Southwest case, the panel issued an administrative stay on September 25. The first panel never ruled on a stay pending appeal, even after holding oral argument and presumably tentatively voting to affirm the injunction (which should've vitiated any justification for a stay); the second panel took 8.5 months to issue a unanimous, eight-page opinion granting one. There is just no conceivable universe in which that was the amount of time either panel needed in order "to make an intelligent decision on the motion for a stay pending appeal."

Critically, these two cases aren't outliers; I'm focusing on them here because they both came down last week. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her SB4 dissent, there are lots of examples of "administrative" stays from the Fifth Circuit that last for months, including in cases in which the stays have sharper ideological undertones (if not overtones).

Just to reiterate why this is such a big deal, unlike the substantial body of case law in lower courts (and the moderate guidance from the Supreme Court) regarding the standard for a "stay pending appeal," there is almost no law about the standard for a temporary, "administrative stay." Thus, issuing an "administrative stay" that functions, for all intents and purposes, like a stay pending appeal is absolving the court of appeals of the need to conclude that the traditional stay factors are satisfied; it really is the epitome of a phrase popularized by the "Strict Scrutiny" podcast: No law; just vibes.

In the Southwest case, the panel eventually reached the same conclusion in granting a stay pending appeal, so the concern ends up coming off as being one largely of timing. But in the Llano County case, the panel affirmed -which makes the year-long administrative stay that much more problematic; a panel that affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction nevertheless froze all proceedings in that court for over a year without ever having to explain why, and pursuant to an at-best-unsettled standard for what's supposed to be a temporary order.

Given that we're now almost three months past the Court's ruling in the SB4 case, it's hard to believe the judges on these panels were unaware of Justice Barrett's concurrence (in a case, remember, that itself came from the Fifth Circuit). Instead, it sure seems like Justice Barrett's message has just not gotten through. That's not just a criticism of the Fifth Circuit; it also has two potentially serious consequences going forward: First, the Fifth Circuit could pull a similar maneuver in a case with much broader significance than either of the two cases at issue here, in which an open-ended administrative stay produces significant and long-lasting real-world consequences ( e.g., by allowing a controversial state law to go into effect, or freezing a federal program on a nationwide basis). Second, if and when that happens, the onus will be on Justice Barrett (and Justice Kavanaugh) to back up what they wrote in the SB4 case-to vacate an "administrative stay" on the sole ground that it was in place for too long, and, critically, to say as much when they do it.

With so many cases left, and so little time before the justices usually take their summer recess, some folks have asked whether the Court could just ... not decide a case (the effect of which would be to "hold it over" for next term). There was a time, when the Court's docket was much more crowded, when it wasn't that unusual for the Court to hold cases over-and to set them for "re-argument" either later in the same term or in the following term. Indeed, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are two especially famous examples.

But as the Court's docket has shrunk, re-arguments have become far less common, and usually have some specific prompt other than a desire on the Court's part to simply buy time. Since the end of the October 2005 Term (Chief Justice Roberts's first), the Court has held only six re-arguments, two of which came in cases argued to an eight-justice Court (in between Justice Scalia's death and Justice Gorsuch's confirmation), where the Court was apparently evenly divided. The other four all involved requests to the parties to argue issues other than those that had previously been briefed-most recently in Knick v. Township of Scott, in 2019. In other words, the odds that the Court would hold a case over to next term for no reason other than because it ran out of time to decide it is ... slim.

If you're not already a paid subscriber and are interested in receiving regular bonus content (or, at the very least, in supporting the work that goes into this newsletter), please consider becoming one. This week's bonus issue drops Thursday morning. We'll be back with a regular issue next Monday.

Until then, happy Monday, everyone. I hope that you have a great week!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
84. Justice Barrett's SB4 Concurrence and the Fifth Circuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two recent decisions by the New Orleans-based appeals court suggest that, if Justice Barrett meant to limit lower courts' use of open-ended administrative stays, the message has not yet sunk in

# data[].attributes.headline
Schlam Stone & Dolan blog post 05/26/2023:  Analysis of ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Schlam Stone & Dolan blog post 05/26/2023:  Analysis of ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas District Court Rejects Library’s Removal of Children’s Books Deemed Inappropriate |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In today’s post, we consider a recent Texas case about the removal of library books. As the court explained, what the librarian giveth the librarian may not

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News 04/25/2024:  Two years since filing, part two

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News 04/25/2024:  Two years since filing, part two

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News 04/25/2024:  Two years since filing, part one 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News 04/25/2024:  Two years since filing, part one 

# data[].attributes.headline
Lone Star Live 04/01/2024:  Q&A with Leila

# data[].attributes.subject
Lone Star Live 04/01/2024:  Q&A with Leila

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An exploration of the origins of racism in America. The history of the Ku Klux Klan. An artist's award-winning memoir about coming-of-age and coming out as gay.

The removal of these stories, among others, from Llano County public libraries sparked a federal lawsuit and changed one Texas woman's life.

LoneStarLive.com spoke to Leila Green Little, the lead plaintiff in Little v. Llano County. The 2022 lawsuit was filed by seven citizens against Llano County and members of its library board and Commissioners Court. The plaintiffs accused the defendants of censorship after they removed books from the library "because they disagree with the ideas within them."

Little comes from generations of Llano County public library patrons and has passed this enthusiasm for books on to her children. She will graduate with a master's in library science from the University of North Texas in May.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Question: How and why did you get involved with the lawsuit?
Answer: I have a lifelong love of libraries and reading. I spent a good deal of time at our local public libraries, my children have been going to public libraries since they were born, and books have always been a part of our lives. It's because of my frequent presence at the library that I decided to channel some of my efforts into volunteering for the Friends of the Llano Library organization. And I was asked to join the board of the Llano County Library System Foundation. It was through the contacts that I made at those organizations that I first became aware of censorship occurring at the Llano Public Library.

I'm somebody that was given the opportunity by my mother to read whatever I wanted to read. That's a value that I've passed on to my children and that was a family heirloom that was passed down to my mother from her mother. The freedom to read has always been incredibly important to me. So, when I saw a threat to that and my public library system, I knew I had to speak up about it. I drafted a public comment and made an appearance at the (Llano County) Commissioners Court to provide a voice in disagreement with calls for censorship at the library.
Q: At what point did you decide it needed to become a legal matter?
A: Seeing the coordination between this pro-censorship faction of citizens and my elected officials, seeing that they were going to get rid of our digital e-book access, they were going to close our libraries for multiple days, they were going to dissolve the existing library board and set a new one up with political appointees, all of those things were incredibly huge red flags to me. I knew that just speaking up and making public comments was not going to make any difference because it hadn't made a difference up to that point.

Some citizens and I banded together. We began to make public information requests and when we saw the extent of what was occurring, we really knew that no amount of letters to the editor, no amount of press coverage was going to make our elected officials change course. They were pro-censorship in their actions and in their words. The only other avenue that we had left at that point was legal action. We had no other choices left.
Q: The case remains pending. What's it like for you during this waiting period?
A: We're coming up on almost one year since Judge Robert Pitman ruled the 17 books at issue in the lawsuit had to be placed back on the shelves and in the catalog at the library system. That in and of itself is a tremendous victory.

It's also coming up on one year that the defendants appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and we remain in wait. I don't know when that decision will be rendered. Things on the trial have been put on hold by the Fifth Circuit, so the trial is not scheduled. It was supposed to occur this past October, but it did not and all proceedings are on hold. That is difficult, to have this cessation of forward motion. But again, the ruling by Pitman remains in effect and the books that we've sought to keep in the catalog and on the shelf are still there.

What (the library) did is they placed a red dot on the spine of all these 17 books and they grouped them all together in the very, very far back corner of the library, despite them having different call numbers and should be shelved in different areas of the library system.
Q: Your family history with the Llano County Library System goes pretty far back, right?
A: It does, yeah. My grandmother was a member of the Kingsland Library and so that was the library that I went to when I was an adolescent. The Llano branch of the library was the library that my husband went to. His father helped with the building that houses the library; he helped put in some bookshelves in that building. My husband's late grandmother and late grandfather were some of the founding members of the Friends of the Llano Library and they were avid readers and ardent supporters of the public library system. So, yes, our ties to this library system spans many, many generations and runs deeply. It's worth fighting for.
Q: How has the lawsuit affected you and your family?
A: It's changed our lives. It's changed everything. Three years ago, I was a regular stay-at-home mom to a toddler and a preschooler. Since then, I've been in library school for two years. I've done interviews on the national stage. I'm involved in a lawsuit.

Lawsuits turn people's lives inside out. I've been called horrible names that every librarian or every advocate that stands up for the right to read knows. It's affected friendships. It's affected my comfort level and my ability to participate in my community. For example, through another nonprofit organization that I'm involved in, I tried to put on two separate community events and both of those were targeted by the (lawsuit) defendants and a group of citizens here in town. There's public backlash whenever I try to do things like give back to my community.

Going through these adverse experiences because of my involvement in the lawsuit, it lets me understand why more people have not taken the stand that the seven of us have. Because there are repercussions. There are absolutely real, tangible consequences to speaking out and to advocating for intellectual freedom. However, it's still worth it. And I would do it over and over and over again, knowing what I know now.
Q: What are Llano County libraries like now?
A: I would say that they're a shell of their former selves. I no longer feel comfortable going into my Llano County libraries. Hours have been reduced, so there's no longer late evening hours or weekend hours. Programming has seen a significant decline. Our system lost its accreditation through the Texas State Library and Archives Commission that it held for 50 years. That affects our ability to access things such as library loans and it doesn't allow our libraries to get free materials for summer reading programs.

That's another thing that's drastically changed: our summer reading programs. There's no longer reading. We have had no new books purchased by the county and added into the catalog system since October 2021. Things are not good for our public library system.
Q: Are you hopeful about the future of libraries?
A: I am extraordinarily encouraged by more people speaking up and more people banding together in their communities to fight book banning and to fight censorship. I am very, very encouraged by the response of the courts to all of the lawsuits that have come out of this pro-censorship wave that we've seen over the past four years. So, I certainly have some hope for the future of our public library systems.

All of this sort of began in 2021, so we're coming up on a few years of this. I have hope that we as a state, as a community and as a nation can get through this with our First Amendment rights intact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Texan who sued to keep books in libraries her family visited for generations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leila Green Little is the lead plaintiff in Little v. Llano County, a 2022 suit filed in response to the removal of books from Llano County libraries. She comes from generations of Llano County library supporters.

# data[].attributes.headline
03/21/2024 San Antonio Current:  commentary on public library attacks, mentions suit 

# data[].attributes.subject
03/21/2024 San Antonio Current:  commentary on public library attacks, mentions suit 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: Bad Takes is a column of opinion and analysis.

In 1850, when the British Parliament proposed one of the first public library systems, private booksellers shat a collective brick. Aside from limited experiments in imperial Rome, most all the great libraries since antiquity were reserved for aristocrats, their advisors, religious orders or paid subscribers.

"Who would continue to purchase books when people could simply check books out for free?" went the humbug. But the social reformers won the day, and 175 years later, millions of lending libraries have popped up around the globe, whether for students or the general public. Happily, reports of the demise of the book publishing industry remain greatly exaggerated.

Whether one resides in the suburbs, the city or rural America, whether right-of-center or left-of-center, one of the last items safe majorities of our fellow citizens want put on the budgetary chopping block are libraries. More than 170 million Americans are registered borrowers, the highest number ever, and when the American Library Association (ALA) surveyed voters and parents in 2022, 9 out of 10 believed public libraries held an important place in their communities.

That's why the last several years in Texas have felt like a blast from the regressive past. Religiously motivated campaigns seek to scandalize and ban literarily significant books. Lawmakers have also tried to saddle school libraries and even independent bookstores with onerous censorship regimes.

And now librarians themselves are under fire.

Spring Branch Independent School District in Greater Houston, which serves 35,000 students, will eliminate all certified librarian positions next year, pleading a multimillion-dollar budget shortfall. Half the librarians at the similarly sized Keller ISD outside Fort Worth, won't have jobs next year. Closer to home, San Antonio ISD, which boasts 45,000 students, gave 27 librarians the axe.

And at the largest school district in Texas, Houston ISD, the state-installed superintendent repurposed dozens of libraries into dual-use disciplinary centers. Most of the schools among those targeted for reform "will lose their traditional libraries and librarians," as Houston Public Media reported.

If we can't teach kids to read and research, at least we'll teach them to be quiet. Maurice Sendak help us if this is a harbinger of wilder things to come.

In our state, the buck stops with Gov. Greg Abbott and the GOP-dominated Legislature, the same meatheads who neglected to increase school funding despite a $33 billion revenue surplus. Texas already has the fourth-lowest literacy rate in the nation, with nearly 1 in 5 adults lacking basic prose skills - a perfect compliment to us also having the fourth-lowest number of libraries. The late great columnist Molly Ivins used to joke that, given Texas' perpetually ranking near the bottom of every educational metric, our state motto should be, "Thank God for Mississippi!"

Unfortunately, when it comes to literacy, the Magnolia State now has us licked.

Statistics notwithstanding, it's the personal stories that have been the most heart-rending. At a school board meeting last March, one student from Nathaniel Hawthorne Academy in SAISD - yes, named after that Nathaniel Hawthorne - lamented the layoff of her librarian.

"Please reconsider letting her go, because we love her," the student begged.

In comments to news site Houston Landing, a parent of two at Terrace Elementary School in that city described their campus librarian as "a magical, real-life Ms. Frizzle," and was moved to tears upon finding out the woman who helped her 8-year-old daughter start a school newspaper would soon be unemployed.

I wish I could tell you getting fired was the worst of it. In a growing group of states, including our own, librarians have found themselves subject to threats of violence and prosecution.

In a must-catch episode of 60 Minutes from earlier this month, Richard Geier - the vice-chair of the Beaufort County Board of Education in South Carolina - discussed just how desperate the situation has become.

"We've had a parent come in and tell a librarian that, 'You are violating a state statute by providing pornography to a minor, I'm going to the sheriff, I'm going to have you arrested,' and storm out," Geier said. "Now, that's not just happened once, that's happened multiple times at multiple schools. I even got an email saying, 'OK, the sheriff has said no, the solicitor said no, I'm going to the FBI!'"

And Beaufort isn't an outlier. As recently detailed in the New York Times, "librarians - accustomed to being seen as dedicated public servants - have been labeled pedophiles on social media, called out by local politicians and reported to law enforcement officials. Some librarians have quit after being harassed online."

Nor is the fallout limited to campus. Echoing Bette Davis' ironic role as a brave librarian in the 1956 film Storm Center - the first Hollywood rebuke of the censorship of the McCarthy era - the former head librarian at Kingsland Public Library in Central Texas, Suzette Baker, filed suit this month against the Llano County officials who fired her for refusing to remove books tagged as offensive.

A federal judge already ordered the books reshelved early last year. Their titles range from the silly ( Larry the Farting Leprechaun) to the pedagogically vital ( They Called Themselves the KKK: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group).

Censorship-mongers are evidently as humorless as they are ahistorical. But what might be motivating them?

American Library Association President Emily Drabinski provided a clue during a February interview with Axios.

"We have to think of this in the context of diminishing public investment in public institutions," she explained.

From the Second Red Scare to today's trans panic, perhaps the real target is neither Marxist propaganda nor queer literature but the democratic egalitarian ideal of a shared public good. Modern lending libraries are what sociologist Erik Olin Wright called "real utopias" - and ones worth cherishing.

Don't forget to mark your calendars for the San Antonio Book Festival on April 13, of which the San Antonio Public Library is a founding partner.

Subscribe to SA Current newsletters.

Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter| Or sign up for our RSS Feed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bad Takes: Texas' attacks on libraries are attacks on valuable public institutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent religiously motivated campaigns in the Lone Star State seek to ban books and saddle libraries with onerous censorship regimes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Freedom to Read Project 03/01/2024:  LISD and BookmarkED 

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Freedom to Read Project 03/01/2024:  LISD and BookmarkED 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Public Comment Delivered to Llano ISD School Board on 2/26/24- My name is Leila Green Little. My children are the 5 th generation in their family to attend Llano's public schools, with two of their grandmothers having taught here, and ancestors with names carved into the concrete in front of the O. Henry building. I love this public school system. I received an excellent education here, and feel that my children are also receiving an excellent education from caring, hardworking teachers.

I applaud our librarians, administrators, and school board, most especially for their adherence to policies and procedures in the face of attempted intimidation. The ship is right, and I hope we don't steer off course.

$5, $10, or $20 makes a difference!

Watch Leila's public comment about BookmarkED (OnShelf), delivered to the Llano ISD school board on Monday, February 26, 2024.

About BookmarkED: it was started just last year, and they quickly spent $80,000 on lobbyists . The CEO testified in favor of pro-censorship SB13, and said, "we allow for the school district to kind of get ahead and understand what books are in their libraries that they may need to do something with ." Website touts equipping "districts with tools to support and empower preemptive decisions."

Hmm, a brand new company, lobbying politicians, "do something with," and "preemptive decisions"? That concerns me.

The CEO's blog says BookmarkED will "provide [providing] valuable insights and recommendations" and students have "tailored recommendations awaiting them in libraries." This is frightening. My children's librarians and their teachers should guide book recommendations, not a for-profit, politically-motivated vendor.

Currently, if a parent has concerns about their student's access to certain books, there is already the opportunity for recourse. One can view the online catalog, identify the objectionable books, contact the school, and ask for the individual student's access to be limited.

How much money would BookmarkED cost? From what budget item would these funds come? Would librarians still have the ability to curate their collections independent of this software, and please, can we enshrine that in policy?

Advocates such as myself have been warning for years about the slippery slope, as nationwide we have seen unconstitutional legislation pass and be enjoined by the courts , bookshelves covered , librarians fired , and the cessation of new book purchases . I am concerned that partnering with this vendor may mark the beginning of a slope for Llano ISD.

To quote Kelly Jensen of BookRiot , "Rather than investing in technology that does not report where it gets its information, perhaps the problems of book bans could be best solved with the tools already at the school's disposal: its professionally trained and experienced staff."

I also hope this board will vote to decline to adopt a policy authorizing chaplains.

I thank you so much for your consideration.

Listen to the presentation BookmarkED representatives gave to the Llano ISD School Board on 2-26-24.

Sign the petition to join the network of Texans fighting censorship in our state!

About Leila Green Little

Leila Green Little is a rural mom and a graduate student in library sciences enrolled at the University of North Texas.She has been fighting against censorship in her local public library system since 2021.In 2022, she and six friends became plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit Leila Green Little, et. al, v. Llano County, et. al, which resulted in a preliminary injunction requiring Llano County to return censored books to the catalog and shelves of the public library.The case is ongoing, awaiting ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She and her 6 co-plaintiffs were the recipients of the 2023 Sam G. Whitten Award for Intellectual Freedom, given by the Texas Library Association. In addition, she has advocated against pro-censorship legislation at the state capitol, and has spoken at national, state, and local conferences about her experience.Previously, Ms. Little earned her master's degree from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and had a career as a speech-language pathologist specializing in working with patients with head and neck cancer.She likes to read banned books, and lives on a cattle ranch with her husband of 18 years and their kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Llano ISD Plans to Implement BookmarkED: Parent Sounds Alarm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leila Green Little, parent & anti-censorship advocate, urges caution regarding Llano ISD school board's plans to implement BookmarkED.

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin American-Statesman 03/04/2024:  Suzette Baker files lawsuit

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin American-Statesman 03/04/2024:  Suzette Baker files lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A former librarian is suing the Texas Hill Country region of Llano County for firing her after she refused to remove books with content related to race and LGBTQ+ experiences, per a complaint obtained exclusively by the American-Statesman in advance of the case's filing on Monday.

The lawsuit highlights the impact of increased censorship of literature across the country in rural communities like Llano and Kingsland, where free access to information remains in jeopardy despite a federal court's 2023 order that Llano County restore titles it had removed from its shelves.

Plaintiff Suzette Baker, a Texas native, was the head librarian at the Kingsland Public Library, about 65 miles northwest of Austin. She is suing the county, the county Commissioner's Court, County Judge Ron Cunningham and several community activists who were appointed to the Library Advisory Board during the push for book removals, arguing that they terminated her employment to discriminate against minority groups through book bans and suppressed her First Amendment rights as well as those of other residents.

A veteran and mother to five adult children, she had more than a decade of experience as a librarian before joining the library and loved her job, which she considered her life's calling.

"(Reading) teaches you empathy. It teaches you how to be a human," she said in a phone interview with the Statesman.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Baker, 57, now works as a cashier at a hardware store in town, she said, "trying to make ends meet."

According to the lawsuit, tension over library materials in Llano County began when a group of community activists demanded the library remove several specific titles from the children's and teen's sections during the summer of 2021, deeming them "inappropriate."

In November 2021, community member Bonnie Wallace sent a spreadsheet with around 60 books to Llano County Library Director Amber Milum and asked that librarians remove "all books that depict any type of sexual activity or questionable nudity" entirely. Milum directed Baker to remove the books, but Baker refused.

The group's efforts to have books on racial or LGBTQ+ topics removed continued to escalate. Some were children's books they deemed inappropriate, like "Gender Queer" or "I Broke My Butt." Others were award-winning adult nonfiction books, including "They Called Themselves the KKK: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group" and "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents."

In January 2022, the Commissioner's Court, Cunningham and Commissioner Jerry Don Moss voted to dissolve the county's library advisory board and appoint 12 new members, all of whom were part of the community group pushing for book removals, the lawsuit says. Milum told librarians they were prohibited from attending public meetings, even during their time off. The lawsuit argues that this constituted suppression of Baker's First Amendment rights.

In March 2022, Baker put up a display including historically banned books such as "How to be an Anti-Racist," "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Between the World and Me," and some books from the group's spreadsheet. She also spelled out "We put the 'lit' in literature," on a marquee in front of the library, which the lawsuit describes as "a double entendre referring to 'lit' as both the slang word for fun and to the historical burning of books."

Milum asked Baker to remove the books on the spreadsheet from the display and terminated Baker's employment shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit. She cited "insubordination," "failure to follow instructions" and "allowing personal opinions to interfere with job duties and procedures" among the reasons Baker was removed.
More: Llano County libraries will remain open amid ongoing lawsuit over certain banned books
Milum and Cunningham did not immediately respond to the Statesman's requests for comment.

Llano County Commissioner Jerry Don Moss, a defendant in the lawsuit, said the Commissioner's Court does not determine whether librarians are hired or fired and that he had no role in or knowledge of the decision.

"The first thing I heard about Ms. Baker being terminated was on Facebook," he said in a phone call with the Statesman.

Moss also said the Commissioner's Court never voted to have books removed and that recordings of each meeting are made publicly available online. He also said the Commissioner's Court was not aware of books being removed and that he had not seen any of the 17 books listed in the federal lawsuit before he was served with the papers.

The lawsuit says Milum removed books based on their content, violating the library system's weeding policies, by which books that have not been checked out for several years, are in poor physical condition or are outdated are taken out of circulation. Moss said the commissioners had no part in the weeding process.

A group of Llano County residents who opposed the censorship filed a lawsuit in April 2022. A judge for the Western District of Texas ruled the court had violated First Amendment rights and issued a preliminary injunction that ordered the county to replace numerous books in April 2023, including "In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak, "Shine" by Lauren Myracle and "Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen" by Jazz Jennings.

The county appealed the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending.

After the court order came down, members of the pro-removal group demanded that the county close the libraries altogether to prevent children from accessing what they called "pornographic filth," the Statesman reported. Dozens of people attended a Commissioner's Court meeting convened by Cunningham over the issue, with more than half urging the county to keep the public institutions open. Baker was one of the 15 speakers to address the Commissioner's Court.

"This is not a communist nation," Baker said to the commissioners. "This is not a Nazi nation. You do not get to pick our reading material. It is ours."

The libraries remained open, but Baker says she has watched as the library has become less accessible to the public. The county has not hired a new librarian to replace Baker and operates with one full-time and one part-time librarian, compared to three full-time librarians in 2021. And while they used to be open on Saturdays, the libraries are now closed on weekends.

"The library cannot function with the skeletal staff that it has now," Baker said.

The county also has frozen book purchases since 2021 and removed access to more than 17,000 digital titles, the lawsuit states.

Attorney Iris Halpern, who represented a Colorado librarian in a successful wrongful termination suit under similar circumstances, says Llano County's tactics represent a dangerous disregard for residents' access to information.

"This is incredibly dangerous because it seems the larger agenda here is to just deprive people of information, period," Halpern said. "There is no investment in making sure that we have a healthy democracy and healthy communication and sharing of ideas, healthy spaces for learning about new topics, or to engage in debate."

The complaint argues that Baker was wrongfully terminated and that the defendants violated civil rights laws as well as employment laws in addition to suppressing Baker's First Amendment rights, causing her "severe emotional distress and pain." The complaint seeks back pay, attorney's fees and an injunction ordering the county to cease from behavior that discriminates against minorities and suppresses residents' First Amendment rights.

Baker says her main hope for the lawsuit is that a judge will affirm that resisting orders to remove books was "the right thing to do." She also hopes she can return to the job she loves.

Still caught in the crossfires of a national culture war, Baker says she sees parallels with her time as a diesel mechanic in the Army.
Statesman staff writer and investigative editor Tony Plohetski contributed reporting.
"I stood up and said I would give up to my life to protect the Constitution," she said. "And I will."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EXCLUSIVE: Former librarian, fired after refusing to remove books, sues Llano County

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A former librarian is suing Llano County officials for firing her after she refused to remove books, including "They Called Themselves the KKK."

# data[].attributes.headline
12/11/2023 Texas Freedom to Read Project:  Little op-ed 

# data[].attributes.subject
12/11/2023 Texas Freedom to Read Project:  Little op-ed 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the summer of 2021, several citizens in Llano county approached the recently promoted and unqualified public library system director about some books.Their collective concern was that books such as Freddie the Farting Snowman by Jane Bexley and I Need a New Butt by Dawn McMillan were "inappropriate."

$5, $10 or $20+ helps support the freedom to read in Texas

These books and others were censored and removed from our public library shelves.This was not done in accordance with our approved library policies and procedures.

This affront to the constitutional rights of my six fellow plaintiffs and I led us to file a federal lawsuit and motion for a preliminary injunction against our county, elected county officials, the library director, and members of the library advisory board.The preliminary injunction was granted by a federal judge in March of this year, and the books were returned to the catalog and the library shelves.

The County's response?Two weeks after this injunction was issued, they held a meeting to vote on closure of the entire library system.At that meeting, two current members of the library advisory board (and who are defendants in our lawsuit) advocated for the closure of our library system "until we get this filth off the shelves," and because "the problem is the 250 that are still on the shelf," respectively. 2

Recall, this started with butts and farts-but it's apparent that's not where Llano's self-appointed moral arbiters want it to end.

This is insane.

Censorship is abhorrent and it must be opposed.Have we as a society-not to mention individual elected officials?!--not learned our lesson from the moral panic caused by Senator Joseph McCarthy?Or the resolution of United States v. One Book Called Ulysses?Or efforts to ban the Harry Potter series?

Today's current organized movement of book banners (including those in Llano county) are no different than their forebears.Each iteration of book banners believes it is unique and justified and right, and that this time is different.After all, books today such as Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer must be so different and dangerous that they must be proscribed, right?Wrong.I'm sure Thomas Bowdler thought the same thing in 1807 when he published a sanitized version of William Shakespeare's works. 3Book banners today are merely standing on the weak, misguided shoulders of censors from the past, such as Bostonians who censored Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass and Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in the 1880s.Past censorship movements were puerile and-thankfully--failed attempts to legislate morality, much like we are seeing today.Today's pro-censorship arguments are unoriginal and have been employed for decades and centuries heretofore.There was concern about moral decay and exposure to sex then, just as there's concern about moral decay and exposure to sex now.

When hindsight allows us to look at the events of the 2020s censorship craze, it will be an unkind lens through which we view ourselves if we do not resist efforts to ban books.That lens will be especially harsh on the public servants who support pro-censorship legislation and the voters that keep them in power.

What is it going to take to get us to see that today's push to censor books is as ridiculous as its predecessors'?When will we learn that if we do not oppose censorship directly, that it will consume everything in its path?

Judy Blume, who has blazed a trail of defending the right to read, said of censorship, "Take a stand...Don't try to do it on your own.No one can.It's up to all of us." 4 Judy, I couldn't agree more.

Click to share this story on Facebook and Twitter.

References

Gowen, A. (2022, April 25). Texas residents sue county for removing books, firing librarian. The Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/25/texas-residents-sue-county-removing-books-firing-librarian/

Anderson Cooper 360. (2023, April 14). Texas library in banned books battle stays open. Here's what comes next. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/04/14/texas-library-banned-books-stays-open-lavandera-vpx-ac360.cnn

Eschner, K. (2017, July 11). The Bowdlers wanted to clean up Shakespeare, not become a byword for censorship. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/bowdlers-wanted-clean-shakespeare-not-become-byword-censorship-180963945/

West, M. (2000). Judy Blume: A leader in the anticensorship movement. The Five Owls (January/February). https://judyblume.com/judy-blume-on-censorship/censorship-leader-2/

All other factual information about events in Llano county is verifiable.News coverage can be found here: https://padlet.com/lalubean/leila-green-little-et-al-v-llano-county-et-al-pskk6asn9z4cu9xz

About Leila Green Little

Leila Green Little is a rural mom and a graduate student in library sciences enrolled at the University of North Texas.She has been fighting against censorship in her local public library system since 2021.In 2022, she and six friends became plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit Leila Green Little, et. al, v. Llano County, et. al, which resulted in a preliminary injunction requiring Llano County to return censored books to the catalog and shelves of the public library.The case is ongoing, awaiting ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. She and her 6 co-plaintiffs were the recipients of the 2023 Sam G. Whitten Award for Intellectual Freedom, given by the Texas Library Association. In addition, she has advocated against pro-censorship legislation at the state capitol, and has spoken at national, state, and local conferences about her experience.Previously, Ms. Little earned her master's degree from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and had a career as a speech-language pathologist specializing in working with patients with head and neck cancer.She likes to read banned books, and lives on a cattle ranch with her husband of 18 years and their kids.

Sign the petition to join the network of parents and community allies fighting censorship in Texas!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stories from Deep In the Heart of Texas: Why I'm Still Fighting Censorship in Llano, Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A true story about farting snowmen, broken butts & censorship in a Llano, Texas library, by Leila Green Little.

# data[].attributes.headline
12/07/2023 The Llano News:  Six months waiting

# data[].attributes.subject
12/07/2023 The Llano News:  Six months waiting

# data[].attributes.headline
11/15/2023 Axios Austin:  Book swap, fundraiser 

# data[].attributes.subject
11/15/2023 Axios Austin:  Book swap, fundraiser 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The book wars that have pitted residents of a rural Central Texas county against one another have spilled out well beyond the courtroom.

Driving the news: A church recently backed out of hosting a community book swap in Llano after the Llano Tea Party accused the event's organizers of "pushing ... pornographic books in our community."

Why it matters: The fight in Llano County distills how America's culture wars have divided communities nationally.

Catch up quick: Alleging a "literary witch hunt,"a handful ofLlano County residents last year asked an Austin federal judge to stop officials from removing public library books, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated.

After the judge ordered the officials to return banned books to library shelves, county officials in Aprilconsidered closing the county's public libraries altogether.

An appeal in the ongoing lawsuit, brought last year by county residents who oppose the book bans, is now before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Zoom in: The Fall Community Book Swap was organized by the Llano County Library System Foundation, whose board members include plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, and was scheduled to be hosted by the Grace Episcopal Church.

Of note: The library system foundation itself is not involved in the lawsuit.

What they said: In encouraging its members in mid-October to press the church to abandon the event, Llano Tea Party officials wrote on Facebook that "Accountability is necessary to insure children's safty and unfortunately, this group putting this swap together is the same group pushing these pornographic books on our community."

Two days later, the church announced it would no longer host the book swap.

"Perhaps in another context, a book swap would not be an actual or a perceived threat to the community, but at this time and in this community, this Fall Book Swap has become something of a lightning rod for controversy, fear, ill intent, deception, and division," the Rev. Betsy Stephenson, the priest-in-charge of Grace Episcopal Church, wrote on Facebook.

"This decision is not a win for anyone. If anything, it shows how difficult it is to live in love and charity with one's neighbors."

The book event proceeded in a local park in early November.

"Found some great books for my grandchildren for Christmas," one person wrote on Facebook about the event, which included fresh ginger scones. "Not to mention some wonderful reading for me!"

The book swap ended up at a park outdoors. Photo courtesy Llano County Library System Foundation.

A "Protect Our Children" fundraising event in late November at Llano's Sandstone Mountain Ranch, an exotic hunting and wedding venue, will include Heritage Foundation head Kevin Roberts and Republican Party of Texas head Matt Rinaldi, among others.

What's next: The friction comes as legal bills mount for supporters of a book ban.

"Llano County needs encouragement and support as we are the tip of the spear battling this woke ideology of exposing young children to pornographic and other harmful and profane content," reads a flyer promoting the event.

Event organizers did not respond to an Axios interview request.

By the numbers: The event organizers say the county has spent "close to $200,000 on this lawsuit."

The other side: Attorneys for the Llano residents fighting the book ban have said they are doing the work pro bono. They declined to answer an Axios question about who, if anyone, is underwriting the cost of the lawsuit.

Mitchell, who has an Austin office and also didn't respond to an Axios interview request, is widely credited with devising the legal strategy for a Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks and empowers private citizens to bring lawsuits against those who violate it.

Axios previously reported how Mitchell is now applying the same novel legal mechanisms to book bans.

The bottom line: The Protect Our Children event will raise money to pay America First Legal, headed by former Donald Trump adviser Stephen Miller, and Jonathan Mitchell, the county's outside counsel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Llano library wars continue with book swap friction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fight in Llano County distills how America's culture wars have divided communities nationally.

# data[].attributes.headline
11-10-2023:  KXAN, Suzette, book banning

# data[].attributes.subject
11-10-2023:  KXAN, Suzette, book banning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AUSTIN (KXAN) - Should some books be banned? It's a question that has some people saying "Yes," while others say "No."

"There are things I can never experience, but I can go to the library and check out a book, and I can walk in somebody else shoes," said Former Llano County Librarian Suzette Baker.

Baker lost her job after she refused to remove books that some people claimed were "inappropriate".

"You can't deny someone access because you don't believe in what it says," Baker said.

In a special meeting in April, the Llano County Commissioners Court discussed whether to "continue or cease operations of the current physical Llano County Library System," some claimed there were inappropriate books in the library that needed to be removed.

"These materials cannot be in the library. It has destroyed my family," said one speaker at the meeting.

Several people speaking said they wanted some books removed.

"When you have sexually explicit material in an area where a 5-year-old can get a hold of it, that is wrong," said Ervin Light back in April.

The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) reported 695 attempts to censor library materials and services and documented challenges to 1,915 unique titles. The number of unique titles challenged has increased by 20 percent from the same reporting period in 2022, the year in which the highest number of book challenges occurred since ALA began compiling this data more than 20 years ago.

"We are ranked number two in the country for the number of books and titles that have been challenged," said Shirley Robinson with the Texas Library Association.

The association said parents have to be involved in the books their children pick up to read.

"It is vitally important for parents to get involved in the choices that their child is reading and to make sure the books they are bringing home reflect their own family values, but you don't have that right to make that choice for another family's child," said Robinson.

This weekend, the Texas Book Festival kicks off in Austin. One panel discussion titled "Threats to Freedom of Expression" will feature two authors who have had their books banned.

"The right to read, write and think freely is the cornerstone of our democracy, so our organization will always champion that right," said Hannah Gabel, literary director for the Texas Book Festival.

"Books help inform young children, as well as adults and provide them with the language they need to describe experiences that they have been through."

For the full report on book challenges, click here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should some books be banned? It's a question that has some people saying yes, while others say, no.

# data[].attributes.headline
NPR 04/13/2023:  Tina interview, book ban fight intensifying. 

# data[].attributes.subject
NPR 04/13/2023:  Tina interview, book ban fight intensifying. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NPR's Andrew Limbong talks with Tina Castelan, a former librarian for the Llano County Library System in Texas, about the continuing fight over certain titles on the library's shelves.

ANDREW LIMBONG, HOST:

The book ban fight is intensifying in Llano, Texas. County commissioners there held a meeting yesterday to decide whether to close their public library system entirely rather than restore 17 banned titles to their shelves as a federal judge had ordered. The commissioners decided to keep the libraries open for now. But this is all part of a longer battle that started in 2021, when library officials began removing titles from the shelves. Many dealt with themes of LGBTQ identity or race. Others included children's titles about farting. Tina Castelan was a librarian there at the time. She resigned under duress in 2022 and joins me now. Welcome. Hi, Tina.

TINA CASTELAN: Hello. Thank you for having me.

LIMBONG: So what's your reaction to this decision by the commissioners to keep the libraries open for now at least?

CASTELAN: So I think it's definitely a small win for us, but there is a long road ahead of us. And it's going to take a lot of work in the community coming together to explain to the commissioners just how important this library system is for all of us.

LIMBONG: For people who aren't familiar with, like, the list of books that are being disputed, can you tell me about a few of the titles?

CASTELAN: Yes. So most of them are actually young adult, in the teen section. So they include books like "Caste," books like "My Life As A Transgender Teen," "Gabi, A Girl In Pieces," the butt and fart books, as they're - they've been known as.

LIMBONG: Well, when you say butt and fart books, you mean like that book, like, "I Need A New Butt" - right? - pretty innocent children's book stuff.

CASTELAN: Yes. So...

LIMBONG: Yeah.

CASTELAN: Yes. So all three - I think there's the three butt books, and then there's a couple of fart books. There's, like, "Larry The Farting Leprechaun," I think, like, a heart - something about a heart that farts and a snowman and something else.

LIMBONG: Who farts, right?

CASTELAN: Yes, who farts. Yes.

LIMBONG: I understand you've been going to the library in Llano since you were 6 - right? - before going on to work there. But then you - eventually you resigned. What led to that?

CASTELAN: Yes. So the library itself was receiving phone calls from people calling us Nazis, saying that we're burning books, calling us, like, pedophiles, groomers, just all of this really negative attention. And the county had pretty much said, like, yeah, we hear it. We see it. But just ignore it. Deal with it. And so I just didn't feel very supported, and I didn't feel like it was worth me staying and losing my sanity over.

LIMBONG: But you're still in the community. You still go to the library, right?

CASTELAN: Oh, yeah.

LIMBONG: What does Llano stand to lose if the libraries do, in fact, close down?

CASTELAN: Oh, we stand to lose so much. I mean, the Llano library is kind of the center point, and it's where you can learn how to, like, homestead and kind of survival skills, how to can things. There was a whole seed library where you could check out seeds, and you weren't required to, like, bring anything back. You just could check them out and go plant them in your garden. They've got crafternoons (ph), Wi-Fi, I mean, even just a place that - if it's too hot or your kid is bored and they don't know what to do, there are games. There's puzzles. There's movies. It's a place where you could just sit there - no worries, no questions asked.

LIMBONG: Tina Castelan is a former librarian with the Llano County Library System in Texas. Tina, thanks so much.

CASTELAN: Thank you so much. Y'all have a great day.

LIMBONG: You, too.

(SOUNDBITE OF MORGAN WALLEN SONG, "LAST NIGHT")

Copyright © 2023 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The book ban fight is intensifying in Llano, Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NPR's Andrew Limbong talks with Tina Castelan, a former librarian for the Llano County Library System in Texas, about the continuing fight over certain titles on the library's shelves.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 08/10/2023:  Brave Books library event

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 08/10/2023:  Brave Books library event

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 08/01/2023:  Awaiting ruling, part 2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 08/01/2023:  Awaiting ruling, part 2

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News, 08/10/2023:  Awaiting ruling, part 1

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News, 08/10/2023:  Awaiting ruling, part 1

# data[].attributes.headline
08/2023 Mother Jones:  commentary by Dashka Slater 

# data[].attributes.subject
08/2023 Mother Jones:  commentary by Dashka Slater 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Not long ago, I was one of 22 authors honored at a fundraising dinner for my local library. It was a swanky affair, with a multicourse meal, a pair of emcees, and a photographer to capture the rare sight of authors in cocktail attire rather than the sweatpants and baggy T-shirts we tend to favor. Midway through the meal, a waiter placed a full bottle of wine in front of me. "Thanks for giving 'em hell," he said. "Keep up the good fight."

An emcee had just announced that my Stonewall Award-winning New York Times bestseller, , was the 10th most frequently challenged book in Texas and the 35th in the United States last year, a fact that caused the entire room to burst into applause. Bottles of wine are a rare response to such news, but high fives and congratulations are common. Having my book banned is a badge of honor, people often tell me.

I appreciate the sentiment, of course, but it does feel a bit like being congratulated for getting kicked in the teeth by the neighborhood bully. I'm not actually giving the book banners hell, much as I'd like to. I'm receiving hell. We all are: readers, writers, teachers-everyone who cares about the freedom to read.

"They say there's porn in schools, and then they ban ' Dim Sum for Everyone!'" says Ellen Oh. "Pretty sure there's no porn in ' Dim Sum for Everyone!' "

The American Library Association reports that more than 2,500 books were challenged in 2022, a big uptick from the already astonishing 1,858 challenged in 2021, which was already five times the number challenged in 2019. Last year, some 41 percent of challenged books were by or about LGBTQ people, and 40 percent were by or about people of color. The 57 Bus, a nonfiction narrative about two teenagers on either side of a high-profile crime, is a twofer: One main character is Black, the other nonbinary. The Tennessean reported just last month that The 57 Bus is now one of that state's top five most challenged books.

Now that many books about race, gender, and sexuality have been cleared from the shelves, the censors are casting an even wider net. According to the latest report from PEN America, an increasing number of challenges target books about violence and abuse, health and wellbeing, and death and grief.

Book bans have been an American pastime since at least the antebellum era, when Southern states forbade the sale of Uncle Tom's Cabin. In modern times, bans have usually involved lone crusaders targeting a particular title. But this new wave is fundamentally different, driven by groups with strong ties to the Republican Party, such as Independent Women's Voice, Moms for Liberty, and No Left Turn. Often, a single person affiliated with one group or another presents local authorities with a long list of books they want removed from the shelves-sometimes books they haven't read and whose names they can't even bother to get right. One member of Moms for Liberty had 20 Jodi Picoult titles removed from school libraries in Martin County, Florida. Citizen censors even targeted a book by bestselling young adult author John Green for being "depressing."

State legislators have gotten into the act, too, unleashing an avalanche of bills that make it easier to remove books from libraries and harder to add them. The lawmakers typically insist that they're not banning books-just "pornography." But the books themselves tell a different story. "They say there's porn in schools, and then they ban Dim Sum for Everyone!"observes author Ellen Oh, co-founder of the nonprofit We Need Diverse Books, referring to a picture book by award-winning author-illustrator Grace Lin that was recently banned in Duval County, Florida. "Pretty sure there's no porn in Dim Sum for Everyone! "

In Arkansas, librarians and teachers now face up to six years in prison if they distribute materials authorities deem obscene or harmful.

It's not surprising that the states passing anti-transgender laws are also banning books with queer characters and the states criminalizing abortion are banning books that talk about menstruation and reproductive health. But the challenges aren't just in red states. They're happening in school districts in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and my home state of California. Because there's no central registry of banned books, no one can say with certainty where or how often a given book has been banned, quietly removed from library shelves before any challenge is filed, preemptively stolen by censorship-minded patrons, or just never ordered in the first place. I typically only hear about my own book getting banned when news coverage generates a Google Alert or a librarian emails me with a plea for help.

Yet this particular aspect of the culture wars is accelerating as state legislators introduce ever more extreme bills, some of which actually criminalize the everyday work of librarians. In Missouri, a new law threatens educators and librarians with up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine for providing minors with "explicit sexual materials." The legislation already has led to more than 250 books being pulled from the shelves of school libraries, including titles such as Eyewitness Art: Looking at Paintings, The Children's Bible, and Puberty Is Gross But Also Really Awesome.

In Arkansas, a new law threatens school and community librarians, and teachers, with up to six years in prison and fines of up to $10,000 if they distribute materials deemed obscene or harmful; Indiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have similar laws. More than 15 police reports were filed against library staff in Arkansas last year because of the books on their shelves-including The 57 Bus. In Texas, local police have been called to libraries at least five times to investigate "obscene" content, according to the Houston Chronicle, and the Texas Education Agency has opened at least 20 criminal investigations of school districts accused of distributing obscene materials.

Despite this all-out assault, those of us who write books continue to write them. My latest nonfiction narrative, published in August, was the product of four years of in-depth reporting. Accountable: The True Story of a Racist Social Media Account and the Teenagers Whose Lives It Changed covers the origins and aftermath of an anti-Black Instagram account at a public high school from multiple perspectives: those of the student who created the account; the people who followed it; the kids it targeted; and the parents, teachers, and administrators whose responses often made matters worse.

It's a curious time to be releasing a book about the ways young people can become both radicalized and victimized online, though the topic couldn't be timelier, with hate crimes and white nationalism on the rise, the devastating impacts of social media on teenage mental health under scrutiny, and the boundaries between hate speech and free speech being debated vigorously on both the right and the left. I wrote the book precisely because I wanted young people-and the adults in their lives-to have the tools they need to navigate these events when they happen.

For children's and YA authors, schools and libraries are a make-or-break market-kids are unlikely to seek out banned books themselves.

But I fear many of the students who would get the most out of my book may not learn that it exists. Never mind that Accountable investigates something that happens at middle and high schools in every corner of the country or that it was meticulously reported and fact-checked or that it contemplates true events from a variety of viewpoints. The simple fact that it deals with racism may be enough to keep it off library and classroom shelves. In the current climate, teachers and librarians can't help but wonder whether accommodating a "controversial" book is worth the potential blowback, which might include receiving death threats, getting fired, or being labeled a "pedophile" or "groomer." In a 2022 survey of school librarians by School Library Journal, 97 percent said they had allowed "the effect of controversial subject matter" to influence their purchasing decisions.

While popular wisdom insists that book bans boost sales, that's really only true for classics like Art Spiegelman's Maus (banned in Tennessee), not for the roughly 850 other titles under investigation in Texas that have garnered considerably less attention. For children's and YA authors, schools and libraries are a make-or-break market. Young people are unlikely to have the cash or the inclination to buy banned books themselves. And no student can possibly track every title being kept from them. That's bad for authors, but also for kids, who are essentially being told the government considers them -their bodies, cultures, families, histories, interests, struggles, and sexualities-unfit for public consumption.

Every author thinks about their readers as they write, and those of us who write for young people probably do so more than most. We have to make our stories comprehensible to readers with limited life experience, for whom decade-old events are ancient history, without being condescending or glossing over complexities. I want my readers to feel challenged, to find themselves having to balance competing values, to have their certainties assailed by counterexamples and their empathy drawn in unexpected directions.

"Sometimes I get so upset that I can't focus on writing, which means that they're taking away books that haven't even been written yet."

The stacks of letters I've received from students around the world tell me that this kind of reading experience is exactly what young people crave. They don't want to be preached at or lectured to or spoon-fed-they want to be asked to think, to be exposed to new ideas and perspectives. "I hope you can write more books about societal problems in the world, so more people can read these books and change their views, deepen their understanding so that we can fix these problems in society," one student wrote me recently.

Seven years ago, I authored a piece for this magazine about the lack of diversity in children's publishing. Things have changed dramatically since then, with books by and about people from diverse backgrounds being produced in record numbers and earning many of the industry's most prestigious awards. In 2012, 7 percent of children's books were about people of color. In 2021, it was 33 percent. LGBTQ representation has had a similar surge in visibility.

The children who grew up reading these books, and who learned a more accurate and inclusive history at school, are a force to be reckoned with: empathic, activist, justice-minded, and impatient for change. They also vote in numbers not seen in decades-which probably explains why the same people who are banning books are also trying to curtail voting on college campuses. "Book banners are scared of the kids. That's the bottom line," Ellen Oh says.

Oh told me she remains optimistic. The bans are extremely unpopular among liberals and conservatives alike, she points out. But fans of the right to read freely tend not to show up at school board meetings and statehouses the way the book banners do, either because they take their constitutional freedoms for granted or because they're cowed by the vitriol the censors might throw their way. Without an engaged local press, too, many people are unaware of books being challenged in their backyard. But when readers do show up in force and resist, they can make a big difference.

Consider what happened in Llano County, Texas, this past April. A federal judge had ordered titles on racism and sexual identity returned to the shelves of the county library after deeming their removal a First Amendment violation. In response, the county library board's far-right members proposed defunding the system entirely-a move reminiscent of the Jim Crow segregationists who filled in public swimming pools rather than integrate them. But after more than 100 Central Texas library supporters showed up at the midweek meeting where the closure vote was to take place, the county commissioners opted to keep the library open.

Such pushback, alas, has been all too rare, which is why we authors are spending our precious writing time speaking out about book bans at conferences, demonstrations, and public meetings; writing op-eds; posting on social media; recording anti-censorship videos; and attending strategy sessions on how best to respond to the growing threat. "All the authors I started fighting [alongside] a year ago are just tired," says Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America.

"The other side is showing up, all the time and all over," says author Phil Bildner. "That's what we need to be doing, but we're not."

I'm tired too. When I get together with other children's and YA authors, our shoptalk is often about how the bans have affected our careers: the outrageous accusations; the cries for help from embattled parents, teachers, and librarians; the mysteriously canceled speaking engagements; the surreal question of whether it's even safe for us to do public appearances. "Sometimes, in especially bad situations, I get so upset that I can't focus on writing, which means that they're taking away books that haven't even been written yet," says Kyle Lukoff, a National Book Award finalist and Newbery honoree whose books featuring trans characters have become frequent censorship targets.

But what choice do we have? Well-placed lawsuits may eventually put an end to clearly unconstitutional censorship laws, but succeeding in court requires time, money, and an unbiased judiciary. For now, we have no choice but to fight where the battle is being waged-at school board meetings and statehouses. And frankly, we need our allies to start showing up. The censors will keep clearing the shelves until the people who believe in readers' rights start packing hearing rooms, walking precincts in school board elections, and registering their views with school district administrators. "Our side is really good at strongly worded letters and social media rants," author Phil Bildner tells me. "The other side is showing up, all the time and all over. That's what we need to be doing, but we're not. Not like we need to be."

So hold your applause for the moment and join me on the front lines. Once we've won this thing, we can raise a glass to our success. I've got a nice bottle of wine chilling in the fridge.

If you buy a book using a Bookshop link on this page, a small share of the proceeds supports our journalism.

Looking for news you can trust?

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Close

Thank you for subscribing!

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth-particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones' journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for-that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in " News Never Pays," or " It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

-Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director
Donate

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth-particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones' journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for-that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in " News Never Pays," or " It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

-Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director
Donate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authors like me are fighting the book-ban zealots. We need help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If supporters won't show up to that Tuesday night meeting, the censors win.

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin American-Statesman 07/16/2023:  Editorial with Mark Smith

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin American-Statesman 07/16/2023:  Editorial with Mark Smith

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Students and the right to read – why new law should be challenged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The law will lead to content-based restrictions on constitutionally protected speech in school libraries.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Llano News 07/06/2023: Waiting on decision from court of appeals  

# data[].attributes.subject
The Llano News 07/06/2023: Waiting on decision from court of appeals  