Colorado school district responds to lawsuit after removing certain books off library shelves
A battle over books has put the Elizabeth School District center stage of what it says has been false information about why it chose to remove 19 book titles from its school libraries.
"This is not about political views. This is not about ideology. This is about inappropriate content," said Dan Snowberger, superintendent of schools at the district.
It was last spring when the district first reviewed the material inside its school libraries.
"During that process, we were looking for content that was sensitive, and not to remove it, but we have parents who were concerned," Snowberger said. "Instead of removing books that were sensitive, our board felt like we wanted to empower our parents."
Eventually, the board decided to bring 19 book titles before parents to decide if they wanted to keep those books on library shelves or remove them.
"Those 19 books were identified by the reviewers as probably being inappropriate in our schools," Snowberger said. "Many districts may just remove them. We felt like ... it was our community's decision to review and make that decision. So we put them on display for 25 days, [and] invited our parents to come in and say, 'What do you think? Should these books remain in our libraries? Should they be added to our sensitive topic list, or should they be removed?' And overwhelmingly our community felt they had no educational value, and they should be removed."
That was back in September 2024 when the district says the school board decided, following an overwhelming support from families, to remove those 19 titles:
Snowberger said, ultimately, some of those books were deemed inappropriate for certain ages levels.
"If anyone were to read the books, if anyone took the time to actually read some of the quotes, if I read them on air, you probably would be fined by the FCC," Snowberger said. "I can't even transmit the contents of these books through my child internet protection act filter."
However, months since this decision was made, The ACLU of Colorado filed a lawsuit against the district on behalf of two students, the NAACP and the Author's Guild, claiming the removal of these books violate a student's first amendment right to be able to access different information and ideas.
"Just because parents believe that the books shouldn't be put back on the shelves does not alleviate the school district from its requirements under the First Amendment to not ban books based on viewpoint and content discrimination," said Sarah Neel, an attorney for the ACLU of Colorado.
A district court
judge's ruling
siding with the ACLU last week would've ordered the school district to reinstate these books back on the school shelves. Yet, this week, Snowberger says they were granted a stay of the order this week pending their appeal of the decision.
"So they remain off our shelves. We await right now the judge's decision as to whether she will reissue that order after the plaintiffs respond to our motion," Snowbeger said.
"We believe that the district court judges opinion here was correct, and we will fight to uphold that at the 10th circuit," said Neel.
Snowberger says even if the district court does uphold their decision to have Elizabeth schools reinstate these books, it could take some time before they end up on shelves.
"These books have been disposed of," Snowberger said. "We destroyed them because, again, they were removed on Sept. 9, and the lawsuit was filed Dec. 20."
The district shared a handful of excerpts of these books with CBS News Colorado to showcase what they say is material its school district does not believe should be on its shelves. However, it does support a family's right to choose what their children read or even bring to school to read on their free time.
"It is not our job to change the values of our children," Snowberger said. "We want our children to come to school with whatever values they bring from home, and go home with those values. It doesn't matter if their families are left, right or center politically. We want children to have the values that their parents instilled. That's who we believe should instill values in children [and] not our public school district."
The plaintiffs in this case, those being represented by the ACLU, have until Friday to respond to the districts stay of order.
"At this point in time, the judge will wait for their response, make a decision, I imagine, early next week, and at that point, we will determine whether we need to continue with our appeal to the 10th circuit or whether that judge will actually hold a hearing and allow the district to present its case," Snowberger said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration closes iconic Dupont Circle Park during WorldPride against city's objections
The Trump administration has closed Dupont Circle Park for the peak weekend of WorldPride in Washington, D.C., fencing off a landmark deeply tied to LGBTQ+ history despite objections from local officials and organizers. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. The National Park Service and U.S. Park Police barricaded the park Thursday evening. The closure, which extends through Sunday night, includes the central fountain, grassy areas, and sidewalks within the circle but excludes the surrounding streets, according to Washington's NBC affiliate, WRC. Earlier this week, D.C. Councilmembers Brooke Pinto and Zachary Parker announced that the Metropolitan Police Department had withdrawn its request to close the park following backlash from community members. But federal officials proceeded with the shutdown anyway and have not responded to requests for comment. Related: National Park Service won't close D.C.'s Dupont Circle during WorldPride after all, officials say 'I am extremely disappointed and frustrated that Dupont Circle Park will be closed this weekend despite MPD's commitment to keep folks safe there,' Pinto said in a statement to The Advocate. 'This closure is disheartening to me and so many in our community who wanted to celebrate World Pride at this iconic symbol of our city's historic LGBTQ+ community. I wish I had better news to share.' According to a June 4 Record of Determination obtained by The Washington Post, the National Park Service said that the closure was necessary 'to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presence.' Despite MPD's reversal, the U.S. Park Police doubled down. In a memo to NPS Superintendent Kevin Greiss, USPP Commander Major Frank Hilsher wrote that 'the threat of violence, criminal acts, and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD's original April 22, 2025, park closure request.' He referenced a local DJ advertising an unpermitted party at Dupont Circle and said, 'Less restrictive measures will not suffice.' The Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, told The Advocate it was not consulted about the decision. 'This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor,' the group said in a statement. 'It's much more than a park — for generations, it's been a gathering place for D.C.'s LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting.' Dupont Circle during Kermadec/Shutterstock 'This sudden move was made overnight without consultation with the Capital Pride Alliance or other local officials,' the statement continued. 'No official WorldPride activities have been planned in Dupont Circle this weekend; thus, no events will be impacted.' While MPD had initially requested the closure, Chief Pamela Smith rescinded that request in a formal letter sent Tuesday. When asked for comment Friday, MPD spokesperson Tom Lynch told The Advocate, 'We have nothing to share beyond the letter rescinding the request, which we shared on Tuesday.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser did not respond to The Advocate's questions, but a spokesperson pointed to an appearance she made on local radio Friday in which she discussed the fencing. She said the closure represented a breakdown in coordination between federal and local authorities. 'I think I put this in the category of an unfortunate error,' Bowser told The Politics Hour with Kojo Nnamdi on WAMU. 'We had a communication with the Park Service… and it looks like at this stage, they're going to proceed with the closure, though we continue talks.' Pressed on whether the decision originated at the White House or with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowser said, 'I can't say that with any clarity. I do know, unfortunately, the public safety issue rose to the top over the cultural celebration.' She added, 'We don't control the NPS, though we will continue to try to lean on them for a different decision.' The Park Service has cited past incidents (none of which were linked to Capital Pride Alliance events), including $175,000 in damage to the fountain during Pride 2023, as well as a recent executive order from President Donald Trump instructing federal agencies to protect national monuments and public spaces. But LGBTQ+ advocates say the move appears politically motivated. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund filed Freedom of Information Act requests this week seeking communications and records from the Department of the Interior, MPD, and the D.C. Mayor's Office. In a statement Tuesday, Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard called the decision 'a dangerous step and outside the legitimate authority of the Park Service.' Staff attorney Sarah Taitz said, 'The LGBTQ+ community and general public deserve to know how and why the decision to shut Pride out of Dupont Circle was made, and how and why that decision was reversed.' Though no official events were scheduled at the park, many saw its closure as symbolic — a federal message during a global celebration of queer life. 'World Pride will continue this weekend,' Pinto said, 'and it will be a time of celebration and commitment to uplift our LGBTQ+ neighbors.' Editor's note: This story has been updated with remarks from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lapeer library board mulls age restrictions on materials despite shaky legal ground
Members of Fight 4 the First Lapeer rally outside the Marguerite deAngeli Library on May 15, 2025 | Photo by Karen Braschayko As members of a Livingston County library board march toward restricting materials deemed inappropriate for children, a similar effort is brewing in nearby Lapeer County, part of what's become a renewed effort in the culture war over children's books, especially those with LGBTQ+ content. Some members of the Lapeer District Library Board have also been working to craft a policy to keep certain materials out of children's hands without running afoul of the law. The effort stretches back several years to 2023, as community members sought to have several books pulled from library shelves. Susan Hough, a member of the steering committee of Fight 4 the First, which advocates against censorship within the library district, said many of the books challenged deal with gender or LGBTQ issues. Among those books was the award-winning 'Gender Queer: A Memoir,' a frequently challenged graphic novel which details author Maia Kobabe's coming of age tale as a person who identifies as nonbinary and asexual. The source of the challenge stems from its inclusion of some drawings depicting nude characters and sexual scenarios, prompting opponents to label it pornographic. Lapeer County Prosecutor John Miller suggested he might file criminal charges against employees or library officials if the book was not pulled from shelves. However, Amy Churchill, who was serving as the director of the library at the time, retained the ACLU of Michigan as legal counsel. The organization sent Miller a letter warning that taking action would threaten First Amendment freedoms, and violate his ethical duties as a prosecutor. When the challenge against the book was rejected, Miller took no action. In the years since that incident, candidates with a conservative ideology have come to hold a majority of seats on the nonpartisan board, with some new members carrying ties to the initial book challenges. In February, Hough said members of Fight 4 the First Lapeer uncovered a memo while reviewing the board's public records responding to a request for an opinion on policies to restrict access to certain books, including proposals to move certain children's books to an adult section, or putting certain books behind glass or the circulation desk, requiring a patron to ask for access. 20FEB2025 Legal Memo Regarding Book Restrictions Anne Seurynk, an attorney with the Foster Swift law firm who the board had retained as counsel, warned that adopting any of the proposals would place the library on 'at best, shaky Constitutional ground' and would put the library at risk of being sued and losing. That could saddle the district with the cost of its own attorneys fees and the fees of their legal challenger. Seurynk also served as corporate counsel for the Cromaine District Library, providing them with a similar notice regarding its own efforts to sequester controversial materials. During a meeting of the Lapeer Tea Party in March, the board's Vice Chair John DeAngelis and Secretary Peggy Brotzke discussed efforts to limit the materials children can access. DeAngelis was unable to offer details on what these restrictions would look like, but told attendees that the board would be consulting with its attorney on the issue. He later offered a rough timeline of six months for presenting potential options. 'We don't want to get sued. We don't want to burn up our funds in attorney fees,' DeAngelis said.'We want to do it the right way, so it will take some time. It won't happen overnight.' DeAngelis and Brotzke did not respond to a request for an interview prior to publication, nor did board Chair Kari Kohlman. DeAngelis during the Board's March meeting put forward a motion to replace Foster Swift with a local firm, Rickard, Denney, Leichliter, Childers & Bosch, with DeAngelis saying he would like to use local counsel to keep the board's money within the community. The motion passed with support from Kohlman, DeAngelis, Brotzke and Trustee Carol Brown, despite protest from former board chair Bill Marquardt and treasurer Perry Valle. On its website, Rickard, Denney, Leichliter, Childers & Bosch describes its legal practice as 'advising and assisting individuals, churches, and other religious organizations in defending and taking full advantage of their religious freedom under federal and state law.' Other areas of practice include general civil litigation, representing individuals with small to medium-sized businesses, estate planning, real estate matters, zoning issues and other issues of land use. Based on Brotzke's information request for the library's collections policy during her first board meeting in February, Hough expects to see proposals to amend the district's collection policy soon. The board's next meeting is set for June 19, with Fight 4 the First Lapeer planning to hold a 'Read-In for Freedom' at DeAngeli Library the same day. The group held a similar rally in mid-May prior to a board meeting that ended up being canceled due to a lack of a quorum. Although Brotzke and DeAngelis focused their concerns on protecting children and ensuring they are unable to access inappropriate materials, Hough said the question of what is appropriate varies from person to person. 'That's why we have library professionals who have been highly trained in child development and in literacy and in book selection, who use many tools, including professional reviews, publisher's reviews, etc., as well as their own personal knowledge to select books and place them in – what are considered by a professional – an appropriate place in the library,' Hough said. When it comes to determining whether a book belongs in a library, Hough said she preferred to trust the professionals. 'I don't know about you, but I prefer to let my medical doctor guide me in medical decisions, and I prefer to let my attorney guide me in legal decisions. And I believe library professionals have the training and the expertise to guide us in what's appropriate,' Hough said. Hough further noted that libraries legally cannot have obscene materials on their shelves. While the Foster Swift memo makes clear that placing restrictions on materials could violate the U.S. Constitution, there's no such thing as First Amendment police, Hough said. That means there's no defense against these types of policies unless community members and free speech organizations are watching and willing to respond. Should the board move forward with the policies and face legal consequences, Hough raised concerns about how that could impact funding for Lapeer libraries. 'That's money that should be used to provide materials for our community, provide services, because it's way beyond books' Hough said, pointing to other benefits like internet access and community programs.'There's just so much in our library that enriches the community, and all of these attacks are going to end up having fiscal outcomes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Prominent lawyers join press freedom fight to thwart Paramount settlement with Trump
With new legal muscle, the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation is upping pressure on Paramount Global to abandon efforts to settle President Trump's $20-billion lawsuit targeting CBS and "60 Minutes." Respected Washington litigator Abbe David Lowell this week joined the team representing the New York advocacy group, which has vowed to sue Paramount should it settle with Trump. The group owns Paramount shares. Lowell, who has represented Hunter Biden, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, is working on the case with attorney Norm Eisen, a Trump critic who helped House Democrats with strategy during Trump's first impeachment hearings in 2019. Eisen is a former ambassador to the Czech Republic who served as White House ethics advisor under President Obama. Late Thursday, the two attorneys sent a strongly worded letter to Paramount's chairwoman and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other board members arguing that a Trump settlement would cause "catastrophic" harm to the embattled media company. 1st Amendment experts have labeled Trump's lawsuit frivolous. But Paramount leaders are desperate to end the Trump drama and some believe a truce could clear a path for the Federal Communications Commission to approve the company's $8-billion sale to David Ellison's Skydance Media. Paramount needs the FCC to authorize the transfer of the CBS station licenses to the Ellison family. The prospect of a Trump settlement has carved deep divisions within Paramount, which includes CBS News and "60 Minutes." 'Trading away the credibility of CBS's news division to curry favor with the Trump Administration is an improper and reckless act that will irreparably damage the company's brand and destroy shareholder value," Lowell said in a statement late Thursday. "The board is legally and morally obligated to protect the company, not auction off its integrity for regulatory approval," Lowell said. Read more: Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit have drawn mounting political heat The FCC review of Skydance's proposed takeover of Paramount has become a slog. Skydance and Paramount face an October deadline to finalize the sale or the deal could collapse. Paramount, in a statement, said that it is treating the FCC review and the Trump lawsuit as separate matters. "We will abide by the legal process to defend our case,' a corporate spokesman said. Paramount's lawyers entered mediation with the president's legal team in late April, but no resolution has been reached. Paramount offered $15 million to Trump to end his suit, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the president rejected the overture and asked for more. On Thursday, Redstone disclosed that she has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and is receiving treatment. Last month, doctors removed her thyroid but cancer cells had spread to her vocal chords. Read more: Paramount chair Shari Redstone has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer In their seven-page letter, Lowell and Eisen told Paramount's leaders that, should they approve a Trump settlement to gain traction at the FCC, they would be violating their fiduciary duty to shareholders and potentially breaking federal anti-bribery statutes. "We believe [a settlement] could violate laws prohibiting bribery of public officials, thereby causing severe and last damage to Paramount and its shareholders," Lowell and Eisen wrote. "To be as clear as possible, you control what happens next," they said. The admonition follows a similar warning from three U.S. senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) In a May 19 letter, the senators wrote that paying money to Trump to help win clearance for the Paramount sale could constitute a bribe. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the three senators wrote in their letter. Read more: '60 Minutes,' the Associated Press, an Iowa newspaper: Trump's attacks on the media reach new heights In addition, two California Democrats have proposed a state Senate hearing to examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a yet-unscheduled joint committee hearing in Sacramento. The California lawmakers, in their letter, said a Trump settlement could also violate California's Unfair Competition Law because it could disrupt the playing field for news organizations. Earlier this week, Paramount asked shareholders to increase the size of its board to seven members at the company's annual investor meeting next month. The Freedom of the Press Foundation was created in 2012 to protect and defend public interest journalism. This spring, Lowell left his former major law firm, Winston & Strawn, where he had been a partner for years. He formed his own boutique firm, Lowell & Assoc., with a focus on "public interest representation in matters that defend the integrity of the legal system and protect individuals and institutions from government overreach," according to its website. Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain Lowell's firm also includes lawyer Brenna Frey, who made a high-profile exit from another prominent law firm, Skadden Arps, after it cut a deal with Trump to avoid becoming a target. That law firm agreed to provide $100 million in free legal services. Last month, Frey appeared on CBS' "60 Minutes" to air her decision to resign from Skadden Arps. 'I was able to tell my story on CBS's '60 Minutes' because of the independence of a courageous news division, which is what's at risk now," Frey said in a statement. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
