Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Texas “Book Bans,” Library May Remove LGBTQ Books
The Court announced it will not intervene in a case challenging a public library’s removal of LGBTQ and other controversial books.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a group of Texas county residents challenging their local library’s removal of LGBTQ and other controversial books from its bookshelves.
Yesterday, the Court denied the groups’ petition to review the case, letting stand the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ earlier dismissal of their free speech claims against the so-called “book bans.”
We covered the case, Little v. Llano County, here:
Federal Appeals Court Tosses “Book Ban” Challenge, Library May Remove Books Based on Content
To recap briefly, the conflict between county residents and library officials began in 2021, when, responding to public complaints, the Llano County library removed 17 controversial books from its shelves, including these children’s books: Freakboy; Freddy the Farting Snowman; and Being Jazz: My Life As a Transgender Teen. A group of patrons then sued, alleging the library had illegally banned the books.
At first, the case was going the plaintiffs’ way. In 2023, the federal district court sided with the patrons, ruling the library violated their right to receive information under the Free Speech Clause and ordering the books to be put back on the shelves. Last year, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court agreed.
On appeal, however, a full panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 that there is “no such right” under the First Amendment: “It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book,” Judge Stuart Duncan, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the panel. “The First Amendment protects your right to do that.” “It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you the right to demand that.”
The court also held that the library’s book selections are government speech, similar to a city museum’s selection of which paintings to feature in an exhibit—and therefore not subject to a Free Speech challenge.
The library patrons then petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and reverse the appellate court’s decision “immunizing” viewpoint discrimination in violation of their First Amendment rights.
Now, in denying their bid to review the case, the Court leaves in place the rule in the Fifth Circuit, that the First Amendment can’t be invoked to challenge a library’s decision “about which books to buy, which books to keep, or which books to remove.”
As Judge Duncan put it when he told everyone to “take a deep breath”: “No one is banning (or burning) books. If a disappointed patron can’t find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, I’ve been up the Chisholm Trail
Been through Death Valley, hot as hell
I rode across the dusty plains
There’s cowboy runnin’ through my veins
But, I ain’t goin’ down on Brokeback Mountain
No, I ain’t goin’ down on Brokeback Mountain
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
Well, I’ve watched the herd from dusk ’til dawn
But I did it with my britches on
You can have a chew, you can bum a smoke
But, don’t go reachin’ for my rope
I ain’t goin’ down on Brokeback Mountain
No, I ain’t goin’ down on Brokeback Mountain
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
What you do is your business, Hoss (yeah, like it, ooh)
You can buy me a beer and then buck off! (Off)
But, I ain’t goin’ down on Brokeback Mountain
No, I ain’t goin’ down on Brokeback Mountain
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
That shit ain’t right (that shit ain’t right)
Shelf space is limited, as is money to purchase books. Libraries can’t carry every book is simply common sense.
But ain’t it qu/eer how many of these library battles involve books that will get one expelled from a school board meeting if read outloud, but those same board members will demand children have access to those books in the school library.
These people could not care less about the First Amendment. In fact, they are the same people that will happily cancel any person or book they disagree with.
This is about pushing an agenda. They want their filth pushed into our children and that’s all they care about.
“If a disappointed patron can’t find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend.”
No doubt your local groomer/teacher will keep a handy supply in the classroom…
Then moan about the old trope of having to buy school supplies from their own pocket for students….
They can even request an inter library loan of the book, since there is usually a library someplace with it.
Seems reasonable. However, how would you feel if in a democratic administered jurisdiction book about Christianity or the holocaust were removed? All of a sudden it doesn’t seem reasonable.
Aren’t those books still available “online, (in) a bookstore, or borrow(ed) from a friend?”
To be honest, it would surprise me more to discover that they had not already been removed.
You’re describing my county library system. Very liberal. Lots of gay/trans/liberal nonsense books. Have phased out lots of traditional books and literature.
We’ve built up our own personal library at home.
Also, most libraries have the ability for you to get books they don’t have from other library systems at the local library’s expense. We request the conservative stuff our local library doesn’t have through that just to stick it to them.
I’ve used the online book system here to good effect. Books have gotten expensive too so I borrow and read them on kindle sometimes. The only issue is not everything is available and the wait times occasionally.
So a book about a major religion or a historical event is the same as kiddy porn? Is that what you’re saying?
From a legal point of view, absolutely.
If you make the rules whoever is in charge can censor then what get’s censored all depends on whose in charge and whose in charge changes. It appears a number of people here don’t understand that simple fact.
Err, maybe it’s Miller time? Or am I missing something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
For those above this case is about a public library and not a school library. The context is very different.
It’s somewhat different, but not very. It’s still the case that the government is entitled to have its own opinions, and to decide which books it wants to carry and which it doesn’t, just like a bookstore. It can curate a collection to reflect its own opinions, and if you don’t like it you are free to order the books you like from Amazon — if it chooses to carry them. If it doesn’t, order them from wherever does, or contact the author and publish them yourself.
It is different because of the audience for the books.
That makes no difference. The considerations are exactly the same. A government entity is entitled to its own opinions, and may curate its book collection accordingly. It’s not required to supply all the books that anyone might like.
Of course it makes a different. Curation for children should be different than that for adults.
Why? What legal or constitutional principle says so? Does a public library have to carry Mein Kampf, or The Turner Diaries?! It can if it wants to, but what legal principle could possibly force it to do so?
You’re basically denying that the government is entitled to its own opinions, and that is flatly contrary to the law.
Those of you who’ve been here for a while know I play for the other team. I say this to set the table for what I think.
I support the ban of these books aimed at kids. No, I was not “recruited”. But, these books are just not right for kids. The topic of sexual orientation* is something best discussed with children by parents or a trusted adult.
*it is not a “lifestyle”. Rolex watches are a “lifestyle”. Harley-Davidsons are a “lifestyle”. I didn’t CHOOSE this.
When are the LGB’s going to sever the TQ’s?
I wish it was possible. (Or, is that WERE possible? I can never get that grammar rght…). They latched on to us like barnacles.
The subjunctive is not your friend… but can eventually be properly cowed to service,
I don’t know what a subjunctive is. I am not at all good with third person past tense subjectives and all of that other munooshah.
I just try to talk more sweller and more gooder than most folks. And stuff.
One of my gay friends described the ‘TQIA’ as ticks b/c without asking permission they hitched a ride on the host while weakening the host by stealing their lifeblood and often doing additional harm by transferring ‘disease’ to the LGB host.
Commo, I also add in the flamboyant, gay-pride-parade freaks to the ticks or barnacles.
The majority of us are just… us. Our orientation is PART of who we are, not our entire being, nor is it the prism through which we view the world.
LI’s resident grizzly has no Pride-related stuff. No rainbow bumper stickers. No statue of David atop a sparkling fountain in the garden.
(I DO admit to past ownership of a Subaru, but it was not a Forrester.)
Griz,
I agree, b/c that tracks with my observation that people are who they are and it doesn’t matter to me who they choose or decline to diddle among consenting adults b/c frankly it’s none of my business. I suspect most people really don’t care one way or the other until someone gets in their face and tries to make them. Most folks are aware the TQIA crowd is not indicative of LGB who are no different than the rest of us, outside their particular bedroom preferences.
Well to be blunt there are plenty of LBG that welcome the TQ+++++++++s as well as plenty of leftists that lump them all together. It’s not as if a vote was taken.
I know, and it drives me batty.
I’ve always seen you as batting for the correct team …. in an all star game.
Thank you. I see most of you here at LI as family; so many good people. Even the ones at whom I poke a bit of fun now and then.
I have clients and friends who play for your team and none of them are happy with what the activist class has been doing for the last 20 years.
I don’t understand why this is a controversy at all. Removing the books from the shelves of the children’s section is neither banning nor burning them.
Simply move them to a closed room (a broom closet would do) and allow any ADULT (18+ years of age) to request them and check them out of the library.
If said adult then shares this perverted shit with a child not their own, arrest them for sexual abuse of a minor. If they just want to read it themselves they can then feel free to do so.
I can pretty much guarantee that the requests for this garbage will be minimal.
Problem solved.
We don’t supply kids with books that encourage children to become drug addicts, alcoholics or murderers, so we shouldn’t supply them with books encouraging them to become sexual deviants and perverts.
All people are (at least occasionally) idiots but for most kids it’s more the norm – rather than the exception.
Which is why good parents (and adults) should monitor, explain, and gate-keep what kids are exposed to.
Mere exposure can recruit even if not meant to encourage.
I can cite a personally experienced example – the movie “Pretty Woman”.
Myself and my elder sis’s family (incl. a young teen son and daughter at the time) went to the movies – at the time PW was playing and Julia Roberts being in it decided that’s what we’d spend our money on.
Good movie, good performance by JR,
Back in the car going home my excited niece came out with the statement
“I want to be a prostitute when I’m grown up!”.
Face Palm time.
We had to spend the next 5 minutes of the trip home pointing out all the downsides of that particular life style choice – as EXPLICITLY shown in the movie. She had – in her mind – skipped all that stuff – to arrive at the take-away that if you became a prostitute Richard Gere would find you, fall in love with you, and you would end up happily ever after married to a handsome rich billionaire.
The proper expression is, “I want to be a courtesan when I grow up.”
But thanks to TikTok, the market niche for Hiltons and Kardashians is closing fast.
I’m sorry to tell you this Henry but the window has closed for you.
For whom does the window close?
It closes… for thee!
;-{)}}}
The window closes when the bell tolls.
I am appalled that it took three levels of judicial scrutiny to come to the obvious and correct decision. What is with these judges? What about those cases were funding limits appeal?
BTW, Judge Duncan missed another common avenue for library patrons to receive books that are not in the library – inter library loan. I have successfully employed this method with my local library to satisfy my curiosity without the need to make the lack of certain books a federal case.
Leave a Comment