Book publishers, authors, Donnelly Public Library sue Idaho officials over library materials law
National book publishers, authors, the Donnelly Public Library, and a handful of Idaho parents and students sued the Idaho officials on Tuesday to block the state's library materials law.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, challenges Idaho's law adopted in 2024 that requires libraries move materials deemed 'harmful to minors,' or face lawsuits.
'We are not getting rid of books': How libraries across Idaho are implementing new materials law
The lawsuit alleges Idaho's law violates the constitutional rights of publishers, authors, parents, librarians, educators and students, 'by forcing public schools and libraries to undertake drastic measures to restrict minors' access to books, or face injunction and/or monetary penalty.'
The lawsuit alleges Idaho's law, passed by the Idaho Legislature and signed by Gov. Brad Little through House Bill 710, is 'vague and sweeping.' The lawsuit requests the court enjoin the law's enforcement and declare the law unconstitutional and void for violating First and 14th Amendment rights in the U.S. Constitution.
In response to the new law, Donnelly Public Library — a tiny rural Idaho library in Valley County — adopted an adults-only policy, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.
In the lawsuit, several publishers claim their books have been restricted in Idaho libraries following the law.
The lawsuit is against Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, several Idaho county prosecuting attorneys and the Eagle Public Library Board of Trustees. In October, the Eagle library board relocated 23 books after a closed-door deliberation, Idaho Education News reported.
Editor's note: This is a breaking news story that will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Get a manicure. Sing Monty Python. Be happy. You'll drive the Trumpists crazy
As the psychiatrist Dr. Melfi says to Tony in the pilot episode of 'The Sopranos,' 'Hope comes in many forms.' I was reminded of this the other day when I found my finger glued to the hand of another woman. I had set out that morning to celebrate all the indications that the political plates of the Earth had shifted — millions of people at the No Kings marches, all the court cases that the White House keeps losing and Trump's Epstein nightmare. I wanted to immerse myself in the headway. Something's happening here. Those in charge want us to give up until the next election, but of course we are not going to, because we have children and nieces and nephews. The dark forces must be childless. They are not concerned about squeezing the life out of the Constitution, the rising oceans and the re-emergence of diseases long eradicated, because they are so bottomlessly stupid and greedy. And they are unaware of what happens when the autocracy overreaches. Every time. Think pitchforks. Tick-tock. This gives me a little hope. Hope comes in many forms: When I hear the songs of the civil rights movement at our marches, a soft gong sounds. The poet Jack Gilbert wrote, 'We must admit that there will be music despite everything.' Ever since I heard the author Caroline Myss say that when darkness and evil go nuclear, love and hope must go nuclear too, I started getting occasional manicures with glittery polish, to remind me. There was a nail salon in the first strip mall I passed. I went in. It seemed crowded, and I turned to leave. But the nearest manicurist said, 'Pick a color.' I said, 'No, no, you seem busy.' 'Pick a color!' she demanded, so I leapt to the polish station and picked a sparkly pale pink. An old woman came lumbering out from the back room toward me with a bowl of water. I dutifully fished out $25 from my purse, five of it tip, and put the fingers of one hand into the bowl of warm water. When one hand free, I scrolled through the links on my phone — the usual stuff, the government taking away health insurance from the poor and protecting American jobs by causing mass starvation around the world. The salon had grown incredibly hot. What hasn't? I smiled remembering Sen. Jim Inhofe tossing that snowball around on the Senate floor as proof that there is no global warming. God, the absurdity. Absurdity! A light bulb went on over my head in that salon. That's what we're missing. I realized that this was one solution to the cruel mess and the endless, depressing analysis. Yes, we will take to the streets at every opportunity, care for the poor and pick up litter. But we also, desperately, need to begin laughing again. And who does absurdity better than Monty Python? Monty Python says what we already know, that yes, it is all hopelessly stupid, cruel and unfair, but their making it silly delivers joy and buoyancy. We can grip our heads, fight back and laugh at it and them. And nothing agitates narcissists more than people laughing. Think of how confused our most prominent bullies get when people laugh at them. Bullies rule by fear. Humor is fearless, a bubbly form of hope. Remember the 'Upper Class Twit of the Year' award? And 'Self-Defense Against Fruit'? Aren't people in flag-draped lines voting to lose their health insurance and their basic rights reminiscent of folks queuing for crucifixion in 'Life of Brian'? The cheery, 'Line up on the left, one cross each'? Laughter and those jaunty songs break up the armor that we think protects us. When we're softened and jiggled, we're open to a shift from tight and clenched to the recognition of shared humanity, and underneath that a glimmer of shared possibility. When we don't see anything on the menu that we like, we can at least remember — as Monty Python taught us — that the Spam, egg, sausage and Spam sandwich has not got nearly as much Spam in it. I smiled, hearing the Spam song, right before my manicurist cut the skin at the base of the nail. I yelped. We both looked down at a drop of blood that was growing. She wrapped my finger in a Kleenex and pulled out a tiny tube I assumed was a styptic, and rubbed it over the cut. Then she pinched my finger between hers to stem the bleeding. After a minute, she tried to let go, which was the point at which I realized that this tube was super glue and that my finger was glued to her hand. She couldn't pry her fingers off. She started swabbing us with nail polish remover — not ideal for an open cut. I mewed like a kitten. It took a painful, burning minute to get us unglued. The bleeding was slowing down, and she stroked my hand while looking into my eyes kindly. Kindness is the antivenom. So we proceeded. I assumed that, the way things are going, I would die one day later this week of a fungal infection that went septic, but at least I would have beautiful nails, and Monty Python. I left her a second $5 tip. Hope comes in many forms: If you want to have hopeful feelings, do hopeful things. She touched her heart when she saw. Maybe I don't always remember my doctor's name, or how to spell the fuchsias that my husband grows, but I remember every word of 'The Lumberjack Song,' and of 'Every Sperm Is Sacred.' I hope we don't go crazy with the craziness around us. I can't remember a more terrifying time. I hope that we can keep centered, keep sharing what we have, help each other keep our spirits up, sing, register voters and rally, and maybe these are all we've got these days, but deep in my heart, I do believe that led with infinite dignity by the Ministry of Silly Walks, they will see us through. Anne Lamott, an author of fiction and nonfiction, lives in Marin County, Calif. Her latest book is 'Somehow: Thoughts on Love.' X: @annelamott
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Truck-makers sue California, in bid to abandon zero-emissions agreements
A group of truck manufacturers have filed a lawsuit against California regulators, contending that the Golden State lacks the authority to enforce its stricter-than-federal heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards. The complaint, submitted on Monday to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, maintained that truck-makers should not have to comply with the state's emissions rules, after the federal government rendered them 'unlawful' in June. Filed by Daimler Truck North America, International Motors, Paccar and Volvo Group North America, the lawsuit requested a declaratory judgement against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the California Air Resources Board. as well as injunctive relief. The complainants argued that recent federal government resolutions 'statutorily preempted California's emissions standards governing heavy-duty vehicles and engines.' 'Notwithstanding that new legislation, California continues to demand compliance with its heavy-duty emissions standards,' the case stated. The legislation, signed by President Trump in June, included three congressional resolutions that upended California's rules on gas-fueled vehicle phaseouts. One of the three resolutions targeted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule — a regulation aimed at accelerating the state's transition to less-polluting trucks that would have required 7.5 percent of these vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. A second was the state's Omnibus Regulation, which aimed to slash heavy-duty nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent, update engine testing protocols and further extend engine warranties. In signing the resolutions, Trump revoked the Biden administration's previous authorization of California's emissions standards via the Congressional Review Act, which allows the repeal of recent such approvals with a simple majority. California had been able to acquire the Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency's authorization via a 1970 Clean Air Act clause that allows the state to set stronger-than-federal emissions rules. Immediately after Trump signed the resolutions in June, California officials filed a lawsuit against the administration with 10 other states, accusing the president of illegal interference. In Monday's complaint, the truck-makers — also called original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) — argued that California's continued demands for compliance has 'threatened' their ability to 'design, develop, manufacture and sell heavy-duty vehicles and engines.' The lawsuit noted that the U.S. Department of Justice has issued letters instructing the manufacturers 'to immediately cease and desist compliance with California's preempted and unlawful mandates,' noting that the state's insistence 'is contrary to federal law.' 'Plaintiffs are caught in the crossfire: California demands that OEMs follow preempted laws; the United States maintains such laws are illegal and orders OEMs to disregard them,' the complaint stated. 'This situation is not tenable.' Describing the regulatory requirements as 'inconsistent' and responsible for an 'unstable' manufacturing landscape, the truck-makers said that 'the misaligned federal and California emissions standards provided plaintiff OEMs with barely two years of lead time to comply with California's aggressive emissions standards.' The manufacturers characterized that period as 'a woefully inadequate compliance window,' referring to the Clean Air Act's four-year lead time requirement for new heavy-duty vehicle pollution standards. The lawsuit also slammed a July 2023 Clean Truck Partnership, in which the manufacturers voluntarily agreed to abide by California's emissions rules in exchange for certain concessions. In response to the lawsuit, environmental groups and policymakers issued a collective statement alleging that the complaint 'paints wealthy truck manufacturers as victims.' Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of CARB, questioned whether the companies 'have any idea how to sell their products.' Noting that the partnership would have promoted electric truck sales and financed related infrastructure in one of the world's biggest economies, Segall accused the companies of 'burning' regulators and 'destroying shareholder value by blowing up that agreement.' 'Red flags abound,' he added. Guillermo Ortiz, senior clean vehicles advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, characterized the lawsuit as 'a cynical reversal of course' and accused the plaintiffs of acting in 'bad faith.' 'These companies helped negotiate the Clean Truck Partnership to secure regulatory certainty,' Ortiz said in a statement. 'Now they're trying to dismantle the very deal they shaped — injecting instability into a market they claim to lead.'
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and President Donald Trump during his announcement that he will use his authority to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and that the National Guard will be deployed to Monday, President Donald Trump released an executive order invoking a rarely used federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control over Washington, DC's police force. Later the same day, DC's Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser seemed to concede that there's nothing she can do about it. 'What I would point you to is the Home Rule Charter that gives the president the ability to determine the conditions of an emergency,' Bowser said Monday afternoon. 'We could contest that, but the authority is pretty broad.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Bowser is almost certainly correct that Trump can seize control of her city's police force, at least for a little while. The District of Columbia is not a state, and does not enjoy the same control over its internal affairs that, say, nearby Virginia or Maryland does. The Constitution gives Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the nation's capital. If Congress wanted to, it could turn DC into a federal protectorate tomorrow. In 1974, however, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which generally gives DC residents the power to elect the city's leaders. But that law contains an exception that allows the president to briefly take command of DC's police. 'Whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes,' the law provides, the president may require the city's mayor to provide him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' The same law, however, also provides that presidential control over DC police must terminate after 30 days, unless Congress takes some action to extend it. So, assuming that the courts actually apply this 30-day limit to Trump, Trump's control over DC's local police will only last a month at most. Indeed, Trump's own executive order seems to acknowledge that his powers are time-limited. The order requires Mayor Bowser to 'provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' The Home Rule Act, moreover, is fairly adamant that this 30-day limit is real. It provides that, absent congressional action, 'no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President … shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days.' So, if Trump does try to extend the time limit without Congress's consent, the courts should not permit him to do so. Trump often uses 'emergency' powers to address ordinary things Trump loves to declare emergencies. In his first 100 days in office, he declared eight of them, more than any other president — including himself in his first term. His DC police order is just the latest of these emergency declarations. Trump claims that 'crime is out of control in the District of Columbia,' and this supposed situation justifies invoking emergency powers to take control of DC's police. The idea that DC faces a genuine emergency is a farce. As pretty much everyone who has written about Monday's executive order has noted, violent crime rates in the city are at a 30-year low. So, even if you concede that crime is such a problem in DC that it justifies a federal response, that problem has existed for three decades. A persistent problem is the opposite of an emergency. That said, Bowser is correct that the Home Rule Act's text permits the president, and the president alone, to determine whether an emergency exists that justifies taking control of DC's police. The relevant language of the statute provides that Trump may invoke this power 'whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Broadly speaking, it makes sense to give the president unreviewable authority to decide when to invoke certain emergency powers. The very nature of an emergency is that it is a sudden event that requires immediate action, without which matters could deteriorate rapidly. Think of a heart attack, a major natural disaster, or an insurrection. Suppose, for example, that a violent mob attacks the US Capitol during an important national event, such as the congressional certification of a presidential election. When Congress enacted the Home Rule Act, it quite sensibly could have thought that the president should be able to draw upon all nearby law enforcement officers to quell such an attack on the United States — without having to first seek permission from local elected officials, or a judge. Congress, of course, did not anticipate that the president might be complicit in such an attack. But that doesn't change the fact that the statute says what it says. A nation as large and diverse as the United States cannot function unless its chief executive has the power to take some unilateral actions. If a president abuses that authority, the proper remedy is often supposed to be the next election. It's worth noting that not every emergency statute is worded as permissively as the Home Rule Act's provision governing local police. In May, for example, a federal court struck down many of the ever-shifting tariffs that Trump imposed during his time back in office. One of the plaintiffs' primary arguments in that case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, is that Trump illegally tried to use an emergency statute to address an ordinary situation. Trump primarily relied on a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. That law gives him fairly broad authority to 'regulate' international transactions, but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Thus, the text of IEEPA is quite different from the text of the Home Rule Act. While the Home Rule Act permits the president to act whenever he determines that an emergency exists, IEEPA imposes two conditions on the president. One is that there must be an emergency declaration, but the other is that the president must invoke IEEPA to deal with an actual 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump claims that many of his tariffs are justified because of trade deficits — the United States buys more goods from many nations than it sells — but the US has had trade deficits for at least two decades. So trade deficits are hardly an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Some of Trump's invocations of emergency power, in other words, are vulnerable to a legal challenge. But the question of whether any particular invocation may plausibly be challenged in court will turn on the specific wording of individual statutes. Will the courts actually enforce the 30-day limit? All of this said, the Home Rule Act does contain one very significant limit on presidential power: the 30-day limit. And the statute is quite clear that this limit should not be evaded. Again, it states that 'no' services made available to the president 'shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' (The law also permits Congress to extend this 30-day limit by adjourning 'sine die,' meaning that Congress adjourns without formally setting a date for its return, something it typically only does for a brief period every year.) So what happens if, a month from now, Trump declares a new emergency and tries to seize control of DC's police for another 30 days? If the courts conclude that he can do that, they would make a mockery of the Home Rule Act's text. Presidents should not be allowed to wave away an explicit statutory limit on their authority by photocopying an old executive order and changing the dates.
