Appeals court rules Texas library can remove books based on content
The Brief
A federal appeals court ruled that public library patrons in Llano County, Texas, cannot challenge the removal of books and do not have a First Amendment right to information from a public library.
The court's 10-7 decision overturns a prior injunction, stating that a library's collection is a form of government speech and therefore not subject to free speech challenges.
This ruling directly contradicts a similar case in Iowa, setting up a potential challenge in the Supreme Court.
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that public library patrons in Llano County, Texas cannot challenge the removal of books from the library and do not have a First Amendment right to receive information from a public library, calling a library's collection a form of government speech.
The decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the decision made by the same court in Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School, which said students could challenge the removal of books, 30 years ago.
The court ruled 10-7 in a full court decision to overturn an injunction that required a Llano County public library to return 17 books that had been removed from library shelves.
What they're saying
Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan penned the majority opinion where judges decided that the decisions that libraries make surround their collections is government speech and not subject to free speech challenges.
Duncan compared the decision to remove books from a library collection to a museum curating their exhibits.
"Take a deep breath, everyone," Duncan said in the opinion. "No one is banning (or burning) books."
The opinion pointed towards briefs calling for the return of the books claiming the decision would lead to book burnings and "totalitarian regimes" and called the arguments made "unusually over-caffeinated."
"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," Duncan wrote. "All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections."
The other side
Seven of the court's judges dissented from the decision calling the removal of the books a "politically motivated" effort to "deny public access to disfavored ideas."
"Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas," Judge Stephen Higginson wrote in the dissent.
Higginson said the majority judges had forsaken "core First Amendment principles."
In 2021, a group of community members began working to have several books they deemed inappropriate removed from Llano County public library shelves.
A group of seven Llano County residents filed a federal lawsuit against the county judge, commissioners, library board members and the library systems director for restricting and banning books from the three-branch library system.
The lawsuit stated that the county judge, commissioners and library director removed several books off shelves, suspended access to digital library books, replaced the Llano County library board with community members in favor of book bans, halted new library book orders and allowed the library board to close its meetings to the public in a coordinated censorship campaign that violates the First Amendment and 14th Amendment.
According to the suit, the defendants worked together to remove several children's books that they found inappropriate from library shelves in early fall of last year. Then, after state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, notified the Texas Education Agency of a list of 850 books he found objectionable that were found in school libraries, some of the same titles were removed from the Llano libraries.
In 2024, a divided panel from the Fifth Circuit ordered eight of the removed books returned.
Both the majority opinion of the 2024 panel and the dissenting opinion from Friday's decision called the removal of the books a political decision.
The books at issue in the case include "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent" by Isabel Wilkerson; "They Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group," by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; "In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak; "It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health" by Robie H. Harris; and "Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen" by Jazz Jennings.
Other titles include "Larry the Farting Leprechaun" by Jane Bexley and "My Butt is So Noisy!" by Dawn McMillan.
The decision from the Fifth Circuit on Friday is in direct opposition to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled in a similar case in Iowa last year.
In the case to decide is Iowa's book ban could go into effect, the appeals court allowed the ban to happen, but ruled that book removal does not fall under government speech.
"Contrary to defendants' contention," Judge Ralph R. Erickson wrote, "the Supreme Court has not extended the government speech doctrine to the placement and removal of books in public school libraries."
The split decisions could lead to a Supreme Court challenge.
The Source
Information on the court's ruling comes from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and court documents. Backstory on the lawsuit comes from previous FOX 7 reporting. Information on the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision comes from the Associated Press.
Click to open this PDF in a new window.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
US State Department Sanctions International Criminal Court Judges
General view with a sign with the official logo and inscription of the International Criminal Court ... More ICC or ICCt, an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states. September 2024 (Photo credit: Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images) On June 5, 2025, the United States Department of State sanctioned four individuals currently serving as judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the only permanent criminal tribunal in the world. The Department of State's designations are made pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14203, which authorizes sanctions on foreign persons engaged in certain efforts by the ICC and aims to impose significant consequences on those directly engaged in the ICC's actions against the United States and Israel. A statement issued by the Office of the Spokesperson to the State Department stated: 'We do not take this step lightly. It reflects the seriousness of the threat we face from the ICC's politicization and abuse of power.' The four judges sanctioned by the State Department are Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Appeals Division of the ICC, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza of Peru, Appeals Division of the ICC, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, Pre-Trial and Trial Division of the ICC, and Beti Hohler of Slovenia, Judge, Pre-Trial and Trial Division of the ICC. They were sanctioned for 'directly engaging in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.' Judges Bossa and Ibanez Carranza ruled to authorize the ICC's investigation against U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. However, several years later, no arrest warrants have been pursued against U.S. personnel. Indeed, as is clear from recent ICC communications, their focus is on the Taliban since their takeover in August 2021, and in particular, the treatment of women and girls as crimes against humanity of gender persecution. Judges Alapini Gansou and Hohler ruled to authorize the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. In a press statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that 'As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel. The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies. This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.' As emphasized by the State Department, as a result of the sanctions designations, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned person that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Additionally, all individuals or entities that are owned, either directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50% or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or exempt. These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. However, these sanctions may have a much more wide-ranging impact. Indeed, after the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan was sanctioned in February 2025, all his bank accounts were frozen, and he is said to have lost access to his emails. The new sanctions have been widely criticized. The ICC issued a statement indicating that 'These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe. (…) Targeting those working for accountability does nothing to help civilians trapped in conflict. It only emboldens those who believe they can act with impunity. These sanctions are not only directed at designated individuals, they also target all those who support the Court, including nationals and corporate entities of States Parties. They are aimed against innocent victims in all Situations before the Court, as well as the rule of law, peace, security and the prevention of the gravest crimes that shock the conscience of humanity.' Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed that 'Attacks against judges for performance of their judicial functions, at national or international levels, run directly counter to respect for the rule of law and the equal protection of the law - values for which the U.S. has long stood. Such attacks are deeply corrosive of good governance and the due administration of justice.' After Prosecutor Khan was sanctioned, multiple lawsuits have been brought before US courts to challenge the application of the E.O. 14203. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are U.S. citizens who engage with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) as law professors and human rights advocates who argued that the order exceeds the scope of President Trump's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and violates their constitutional rights. They seek preliminary injunctions. One of the cases, brought by a U.S. citizen working in the OTP on the situation in Darfur, trial attorney and U.S. Army veteran, Eric Iverson, was voluntarily dismissed after he received a license from the U.S. government authorizing him to continue his work. All other cases are still ongoing. The sanctions imposed by the State Department on ICC judges are highly concerning as they do attack judicial independence. The sanctions will cause some disruption in the work of the ICC. They will also alarm anyone working for or with the ICC. However, contrary to what the State Department may believe, these sanctions will not stop the work of the ICC.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 5th District deserves better than Andy Ogles. Here's why.
When I heard that U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles held a press conference at the State Capitol on Memorial Day, my first reaction was, "I guess he does know where Nashville is." Now in his second term, the 5th District Congressman has been scarce in the northernmost part of his district. Usually, you'll find him in Washington, at a Republican Party event in Williamson or Maury Counties, or on the other end of a telephone town hall where he can control the narrative and screen the questions. When he did make the trip to Nashville, he was in a locked building, holding constituents outside, while he accused Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell of obstructing justice. Ogles' accusation stems from the action taken by ICE and the Tennessee Highway Patrol in May that resulted in 468 traffic stops and the arrest of 196 people. According to Ogles, Mayor Freddie O'Connell has "weaponized his office to dox and surveil federal agents trying to stop violent criminals." For his part, Mayor Freddie O'Connell appears to take seriously his role to look out for all the residents of Nashville, while acknowledging that immigration enforcement can and will be carried out by federal authorities. Letters: Rep. Andy Ogles' telephone town hall meeting stifled dialogue with constituents "The trauma inflicted on families is long-lasting, and I'm doing everything in my power consistent with applicable law to protect anyone who calls Nashville home," O'Connell said. 'So yes, I continue to be concerned about the mechanism for these actions," he added, "and I think what they've demonstrated is that they can occur at times and locations of their choosing without our involvement.' Unfortunately, Ogles' reaction to ask two House committees to open an investigation into the mayor isn't a surprise. After all, he's known more for attention-grabbing stunts – like proposing a constitutional amendment to give President Trump a third term days into his second term – than he is for solving problems. When the state legislature gerrymandered the House districts, splitting Nashville into three, we were told this would give the city a greater voice in Washington. While most people saw through that thinly veiled argument, it's no less devastating to have representatives who are openly hostile to their constituents. I wonder how many times Andy Ogles has communicated with the mayor's office before this. What steps has he taken to understand the issues of not only his district, but the biggest, most dynamic city in the state? More: National Democrats to target US Rep. Andy Ogles as 'vulnerable Republican' in 2026 While the average citizen may struggle to get in touch with him, does he provide access to other elected officials to better understand their concerns, even if they hold differing political views? Immigration is a complex and challenging issue. There is a broad spectrum of people caught in the outdated and neglected laws of the United States – from known criminals to Dreamers brought to the country as babies. I believe elected officials, including O'Connell, are right to address these concerns with nuance and respect for human dignity. It would be great if Nashville had a partner in Washington with whom it could collaborate in navigating these issues, even when policy recommendations differ. I have no faith that Andy Ogles is that person. I encourage both the Democratic and Republican parties to begin recruiting an alternative for the 2026 election now. I believe in the will of the voters of the 5th District, even if their choice differs from mine. However, the entire district deserves a representative who will be accessible, listen respectfully, and seek solutions rather than engage in ideological grandstanding. Bob Faricy has lived in Nashville for 25 years, working in marketing leadership roles for various media organizations, including The Tennessean. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: TN Rep. Andy Ogles is known more for stunts than policy | Opinion
Washington Post
39 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Republicans are right to blanch at this Elon Musk gravy train
Elon Musk last week slammed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' for the trillions in new federal debt it is projected to cost — a subject well worth the nation's attention. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), however, pointed to a different possible motive for the tech billionaire's dissatisfaction with the bill: It 'has an effect on his business,' the speaker said. Johnson suggested that Musk began his campaign against the bill after they spoke about an obscure policy the act would roll back — one that has directed billions of dollars to Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle company. Johnson's claims provide a revealing look at the side effects of well-meaning — but not all that well designed — government mandates (in this case, for the automobile industry to reduce emissions in specific ways), and how they can distort both politics and the economy. While the bill has many flaws, Republicans are right to object to the Tesla gravy train. Rather than keep it, as Musk would probably prefer, they should replace it with clean energy policies that promote competition and choice. Tesla heavily depends on selling automotive regulatory credits to traditional automakers. Manufacturers of gas-powered cars are failing to produce as many zero-emissions vehicles as national and state-level mandates from Washington, Sacramento and Brussels require. Consumers' appetite for EVs has grown, but not enough for traditional carmakers to transition off gas as quickly as the mandate-writers would have liked. So those companies must buy credits from EV-makers such as Tesla, which produces only zero-emissions vehicles. In 2024, Tesla made $2.76 billion on emissions deals, a 54 percent increase from the year before. During the first quarter of 2025, Tesla reported earning $595 million in regulatory credits, even as its total net income for the period was only $409 million. A February Post analysis found that Musk and his businesses received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits over the years, including $11.4 billion through automotive regulatory credits. 'About a third of Tesla's $35 billion in profits since 2014 has come from selling federal and state regulatory credits to other automakers,' The Post tabulated. 'These credits played a crucial role in the company's first profitable quarter in 2013 and its first full year of profitability in 2020. … Without the credits, Tesla would have lost more than $700 million in 2020, marking a seventh-consecutive year with no profits.' If you haven't heard of these regulatory credits, you're not alone. Even for those paying close attention, the EV policy fight that has attracted the most attention has been the One Big Beautiful Bill's proposed phaseout of $7,500 tax credits for electric car-buyers. Musk has expressed openness to eliminating the policy; analysts speculate that doing so could entrench his dominance in the U.S. EV market by making it harder for new entrants to break in. Such are the arcane politics and weird incentives that complex government regulations can promote, as companies compete for the profits that can flow from getting a clause inserted or deleted from the federal code. To be sure, the federal EV mandate's writers were well-intentioned. They wanted to accelerate the needed transition to electric vehicles, as transportation overtook electricity generation as the country's largest source of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. They used various policy levers available to them — from the Clean Air Act to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — because Congress failed to enact more efficient clean energy policies. Republicans can change that, eliminating the mandates, tax credits and other subsidies that riddle federal law and replacing them with a robust and rising carbon tax. This policy would empower consumers and companies — each acting according to what makes the most sense for themselves, without government micromanagement — to decide how to green the economy. Maybe consumers would prefer to buy more plug-in gas-electric hybrid cars that eliminate 'range anxiety' before fully moving to EVs, which will be easier when electric car technology is more mature and charging infrastructure more ubiquitous. That's the beauty of a carbon tax: The emission costs from consumers' decisions would be reflected in the sticker prices they pay, maximizing choice and minimizing federal micromanagement — all while reducing the overall expense of a green energy transition. Admittedly, carbon taxes have been less politically successful than other policies that disguise their costs to consumers. (EV mandates boost car prices across the board; renewable electricity requirements increase power bills; etc.) But the politics cannot be as unflattering as the Musk-Trump meltdown the country had to endure last week.
