Appeals court rules libraries have right to ‘government speech', can remove books based on content
KXAN reached out to the parties in the case, and will update this story if we receive responses.
Katherine P. Chiarello, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told KXAN in an email that their team is considering its next steps.
'It is very disappointing that, today, the Fifth Circuit has regressed from its long standing protection of a citizen's right to receive information under the First Amendment and that it has attempted to create a circuit split by dramatically expanding the scope of the government speech doctrine,' Chiarello said.
In Friday's ruling, Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote that the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not grant a right to receive information.
'Yes, Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech. But plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books. The First Amendment acknowledges no such right,' Duncan wrote.
2024: Texas county removed 17 books from its libraries. An appeals court says eight must be returned
The ruling calls this a relief, and that application of such a right 'would be a nightmare.'
'How would judges decide when removing a book is forbidden? No one in this case—not plaintiffs, nor the district court, nor the panel—can agree on a standard,' the ruling reads.
The appeals court also said court precedence holds that collection decisions are speech. In this case, a decision would be 'government speech' protected by the First Amendment.
'From the moment they emerged in the mid-19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature. What is considered worthwhile, of course, evolves over the years,' said the court. 'But what has not changed is the fact, as true today as it was in 1850, that libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes. Their collection decisions are therefore government speech.'
The justices also took aim at what it called 'unusually over-caffeinated arguments' made by the case's plaintiffs.
'Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library. One amicus intones: 'Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people,'' the ruling reads. 'All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections.'
It said that readers who can't find a book are allowed to seek the book out elsewhere. The plaintiffs in the case could also try to look elsewhere, specifically to the US Supreme Court, for a potentially favorable ruling.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks FTC probe into progressive media watchdog
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) investigation into Media Matters for America on Friday, arguing the agency is likely in violation of the progressive media watchdog's free speech rights. U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, an appointee of former President Biden, ordered a preliminary injunction against the investigation, which was opened in May. 'It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting,' Sooknanan said in the 48-page ruling. 'This case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.' The FTC opened the probe into Media Matters in late May over whether the progressive media group improperly coordinated with advertisers. The anti-trust agency demanded correspondence between Media Matters and advertisers, along with its communications with watchdog groups. In response, Media Matters sued the FTC in June to block the agency's probe, contending the investigation is an example of unlawful retaliation. Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement Friday that the court's ruling shows the 'importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration.' Carusone said the case is not 'just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however. It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration – from any political party – to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power. We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American.' Media Matters was sued by tech billionaire Elon Musk and social media platform X in 2023, arguing that the progressive media watchdog colluded with advertisers as part of an effort to pull advertising dollars from X.
CNN
9 hours ago
- CNN
Judge blocks Trump FTC's ‘retaliation' against liberal media watchdog
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's investigation of a liberal advocacy group known for its campaigns against Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and Elon Musk's X. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan cited evidence that the investigation, which was opened by the Federal Trade Commission last spring, was an act of retaliation against the advocacy group, Media Matters for America. The judge granted a preliminary injunction because, she wrote, 'Media Matters is likely to succeed in its First Amendment retaliation claim, which is all it needs at this stage.' Media Matters has been a thorn in the side of Musk and his X social network for years. The group has published numerous reports about the prevalence of violent and hateful posts on X, leading Musk to call them an 'evil propaganda machine' hellbent on harming his business by turning off advertisers. Musk sued Media Matters in response; the group has countersued, and some Republican elected officials have backed Musk. The overarching charge is that liberal activists have colluded with advertisers to hurt conservative platforms and chill speech. Some of the advertisers Musk has sued have fought back, arguing that he has resorted to legal and political maneuvers 'to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers.' With President Trump back in power, Musk and other Media Matters opponents have felt emboldened. Media Matters alleged 'retribution' when the FTC said it was probing possible collusion. Media Matters filed suit against the FTC seeking legal relief, which is what Sooknanan delivered on Friday, though the court battle is likely to continue. An FTC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the court order. Media Matters, which has been seriously hampered by Musk and company, said the injunction is a symbol of effective resistance to the Trump administration. 'The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,' Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement. 'This case is not just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however,' he said. 'It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration — from any political party — to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power.'
Engadget
10 hours ago
- Engadget
Court blocks FTC investigation into Media Matters' alleged scheme against X
The court has blocked the Federal Trade Commission's investigation into Media Matters, the media nonprofit that previously published research showing that ads appeared on X alongside neo-Nazi and other antisemitic content. In 2023, Elon Musk's X filed a lawsuit against the media watchdog following an advertiser exodus. It accused Media Matters of "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images depicting advertisers' posts on X Corp.'s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white national fringe content." Just this May, the FTC started looking into whether the nonprofit violated antitrust laws by allegedly colluding with advertising and advocacy groups to boycott X. In June, Media Matters sued the FTC, accusing it of unfairly targeting the group in retaliation for past criticisms of X. "The Federal Trade Commission seeks to punish Media Matters for its journalism and speech in exposing matters of substantial public concern — including how has enabled and profited from extremist content that proliferated after Elon Musk took over the platform formerly known as Twitter," the group said at the time. Now, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan has granted a preliminary injunction in the nonprofit's favor. Sooknanan has agreed with the group that the FTC's investigation is "a retaliatory act" and has noted that it is "likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim." She wrote in her decision that such probes would deter other reporters from speaking again. "Indeed, the FTC's [investigation] has had its intended effect." Apparently, because of the probe, Media Matters has "decided against pursuing certain stories about the FTC, Chairman Ferguson, and Mr. Musk." "The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration," Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, told The New York Times . "We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American." As the publication notes, courts had also blocked investigations into the group by the attorneys general in Texas and Missouri. Musk's lawsuits against the nonprofit, however, are still ongoing.
