Jane Wolfe
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday chose not to hear an appeal by a group of residents of a rural Texas county from a judicial ruling that would have allowed local officials to remove 17 books from public libraries that they deemed objectionable, in a free speech case on Monday.
The justices upheld a lower court’s decision allowing books to be removed from the public library system, including those dealing with themes of race and LGBT identity. Lower courts rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that removing the books was illegal under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment objection to government restrictions on free speech.
The ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi but does not set a national legal precedent.
There has been a surge in book bans in public schools and public libraries in many parts of the country in recent years, driven by conservative groups and new state laws limiting what children can read.
Llano County is a rural area about 80 miles (130 kilometers) from Austin, the capital of Texas. The dispute began in 2021 when a small faction of local residents asked Llano County library commissioners to remove controversial books that covered topics including transgender issues, race and slavery in the United States, puberty and bodily functions such as flatulence.
The 17 works at issue include famous author Maurice Sendak’s 1970 book “In the Night Kitchen,” in which some illustrations depict protagonist Mickey’s boy nude as he visits a surreal kitchen in a dream.
The Library Board ordered librarians to comply with the requirements, and residents who pushed for the books to be removed were appointed to local county committees.
Another group of county residents filed a lawsuit challenging the book ban, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated.
At issue is a First Amendment principle known as the “right to receive information.” The Supreme Court long ago concluded that the First Amendment includes a fundamental right to receive information and ideas because it is necessary for the meaningful exercise of other First Amendment rights such as freedom of religion, speech, speech, assembly, and the press.
In 2023, a federal judge ordered county officials to restore the controversial books to the library system. But the Fifth Circuit overturned the judge’s ruling in a 10-7 ruling, siding with the county. The Fifth Circuit concluded that public library patrons had no right to receive First Amendment information.
Writing for the 5th Circuit, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan asserted that “no one would ban” books by removing them from libraries.
“If a disappointed patron cannot find a book at the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend,” wrote Duncan, a judicial appointee of Republican President Donald Trump. “All Llano County is doing here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: deciding which books they want to collect.”
The Supreme Court ruled in a 1982 case that school boards could not remove books because they did not like the ideas contained in the titles. The justices’ reasoning at the time was divided, leaving the scope of the First Amendment right to receive information unclear.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled in June in favor of Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland who sued to exclude elementary school students from certain classes when they read storybooks with LGBT characters.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham)
