Latest news with #5thCircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Texas Legislature poised to implement sweeping restrictions on school libraries
Texas school boards and parents would have unprecedented control over the school library book selection process under a wide-ranging state Senate bill that the House passed 87-57 Monday, moving it one crucial step forward in its path to becoming law. Senate Bill 13 would require school districts to pull books with 'indecent,' 'profane' or 'sexually explicit' content and grant elected board members veto power over new purchases. Any new library material, whether digital or physical, would be subject to a 30-day public review period, after which the school board would have another month before a vote. In support of the measure, Republicans said it will prevent students from being exposed to "sexually explicit' and inappropriate books. Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, authored SB 13. 'Senate Bill 13 understands that too often and for too long, our libraries have been filled with agendas, and it's time to end that,' said Rep. Brad Buckley, R-Salado, the bill's House sponsor. 'The way to end it is to empower our local leaders and our parents to find some resolution.' Democratic members called the bill a distraction from "real" problems that Texas children face, listing among them teacher shortages, housing instability and gun violence. They also argued the terms in the bill are unconstitutionally vague and could allow districts to strike classics like 'Lonesome Dove,' 'Catcher in the Rye' or 'Romeo and Juliet.' 'No child has ever died from a book, but many, like me, have been saved by one,' said Rep. Christina Morales, D-Houston. The House version of SB 13 authorizes school boards to appoint parental library advisory councils, but does not require them. These councils will be tasked with singling out books that contain 'indecent content or profane content inconsistent with local community values or age appropriateness,' as per Buckley's Monday amendment. This effort comes as a 2023 Texas law with a similar goal to SB 13 remains tied up in a First Amendment lawsuit. Under a ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the state cannot enforce House Bill 900's requirement that vendors rate books for sexual content, meaning schools are not yet on the hook for removing them. Librarians have warned SB 13 could substantially slow down the book purchasing process, creating a significant roadblock for the acquisition of new materials. San Antonio school librarian Lucy Podmore said she was able to purchase a book on monologues for a student with a one-week turnaround this school year, making sure a student had it for a debate she was preparing for. But 'If the bill is in place right now, we would have to wait six to eight weeks plus two more months to get that,' Podmore told the American-Statesman. The librarian joined several dozen others to protest the bill Monday. Spread out on the floor and the steps outside of the House chamber, the group of parents, children, librarians and activists quietly read to themselves in front of a 'FREE TO READ' banner. 'I don't think this bill is about protecting children,' said Emily Kaszczuk, who participated in the "read-in" with her 6- and 9-year-old daughters from Leander. 'I think it's about control.' If 20% of parents in a district petition for a library advisory council to be established, the school board is required to create one. SB 13 would also let any parent submit a list of titles that their children cannot check out, and access their children's borrowing histories. Books that are challenged or under review would be removed from the shelves until probes are completed, at which time school board members would publicly vote on them. More: Parent advisory councils could shape school library content under controversial Texas bill Schools could use state funds to offset compliance costs under a successful amendment from Rep. Charles Cunningham, R-Humble. Before the chamber's initial vote, Democratic members implored their colleagues to oppose the bill. Rep. Mihaela Plesa of Dallas, whose parents fled from Romania's communist regime, said SB 13 reminds her of measures used by that authoritarian government to stifle dissent. 'We do not protect liberty by silencing it, we do not strengthen education by censoring it, and we do not honor democracy by fearing diversity," she said. For Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, the proposal 'will push LGBTQ kids away from the safety of school and education.' As a concerned mother, freshman Rep. Hillary Hickland, R-Belton, said she supported the bill because she had seen what she called "filth" in library catalogs. 'Trust has been broken between parents and public schools," she said. "As a parent, we want to know that our kids are safe in the libraries." The bill will go to a final vote Tuesday, and if it's passed, it will head back to the Senate. If the upper chamber disagrees with the changes, a conference committee will be appointed to hash out the details. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas Legislature poised to pass school library restriction bill
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
5th Circuit rules Texas library patrons have no First Amendment right to information
The federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the first time Friday that public library patrons have no right to receive information under the First Amendment, overturning a decades-old precedent barring the removal of library books "simply because they dislike the ideas within them.' Coming from the full bench of the New Orleans-based court, the stunning 10-7 decision strikes down a lower court ruling that ordered Llano County in Texas to temporarily return 17 books it had removed from public library shelves. It also sets up a circuit split that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 60-page majority opinion, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan asserted that 'no one is banning (or burning) books' by removing them from libraries because they're available elsewhere. "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,' wrote Duncan, who was appointed by President Donald Trump. 'All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections." To serve the public, libraries have to decide "which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not," Duncan ruled. "If you doubt that, next time you visit the library ask the librarian to direct you to the Holocaust Denial Section," the judge wrote. Seven dissenting judges called these statements from the majority 'disturbingly flippant' and warned that the decision 'forsakes core First Amendment principles' about the people's right to be informed. 'Libraries provide critical access to books and other materials for many Americans who cannot afford to buy every book that draws their interest, and recent history demonstrates that public libraries easily become the sites of frightful government censorship,' wrote Judge Stephen A. Higginson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. Higginson argued that public libraries help ensure Americans have access to a range of ideas. 'As the Framers knew, only an informed and engaged people can sustain self-governance," he wrote. The reversal of the 5th Circuit's 1995 ruling in Campbell vs. St. Tammany Parish School Board is a win for Llano County, and Republican attorneys general across the country, who argued that public library collections are not subject to federal protections for free speech. The 1995 case found that a Louisiana school board could not ban books on witchcraft because doing so would violate students' right to receive information. Friday's decision also marks the next step in a national culture-wars battle over library materials that has rocked the country — and rural communities like Llano, a Texas Hill Country hamlet 75 miles northwest of Austin — since 2020. More: How a national dispute over library books is fracturing a small Texas town Seven patrons of Llano County public libraries filed the lawsuit in 2022 after the county removed 17 books targeted by a group of conservative Christian activists for their content on race, gender and sexuality, as well as some children's books that contained nudity. While County Judge Ron Cunningham argued that he only sought to temporarily remove books with inappropriate or sexual content, both the district court and the majority of a three-judge 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that officials were likely motivated by a desire to censor books for political reasons. Several of the materials taken off shelves came from a list of roughly 850 books curated by former Republican state Rep. Matt Krause of Fort Worth that focused on content about LGBTQ+ issues, abortion and race. Friday's 5th Circuit decision reverses U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman's preliminary ruling from March 2023, which required Llano County officials to keep the 17 removed books on shelves while the litigation continued. The case has not yet gone to trial. The Friday ruling also marks a sharp departure from the 5th Circuit's previous ruling in the same case. In November 2024, two of three judges on the appeals court found that officials cannot remove books "with the intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree," but that some children's books can be removed over concerns about sexual content or nudity. The decision ordered the county to restore eight of the 17 removed books, which included books on transgender teens, social caste, and the Ku Klux Klan. Those titles are: "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent" by Isabel Wilkerson "Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group" by Susan Campbell Bartoletti "Spinning" by Tillie Walden "Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen" by Jazz Jennings "Shine" by Lauren Myracle "Under the Moon: A Catwoman Tale" by Lauren Myracle "Gabi, a Girl in Pieces" by Isabel Quintero "Freakboy" by Kristin Elizabeth Clark Friday's decision came from the full court, rather than a three-judge panel. Jonathan Mitchell, Llano County's attorney in this case, argued that library collection decisions are "government speech" and are therefore immune from First Amendment scrutiny. But in August, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the government-speech doctrine applies in a case over an Iowa law banning books depicting sex acts. Friday's 5th Circuit ruling "creates a direct split" with the 8th Circuit over whether public libraries engage in government speech, Bob Corn-Revere, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told the American-Statesman. This split makes the Supreme Court more likely to step in and settle the debate, he said. Corn-Revere also said he disagreed with the New Orleans court's "extreme position" about the applicability of the First Amendment to public library decisions. "Public libraries are created to promote the widespread dissemination of knowledge, not to deliver a government message, and political decisions that undermine that purpose conflict with the First Amendment," Corn-Revere wrote in an email. Katherine Chiarello, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said they are "considering next steps" as they analyze the opinion. She did not state whether they plan to appeal to the high court. "It is very disappointing that the Fifth Circuit has regressed from longstanding protection of a citizens' right to receive information under the First Amendment, as well as having created a circuit split," she said in a phone interview Friday. Cunningham, the Llano County judge, said the county is withholding comment while it reviews the 5th Circuit ruling. More: A conservative nonprofit got $80k for a Texas book-ban battle. Llano County hasn't seen it (This story was updated to add a photo gallery.) This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: 5th Circuit overturns decades-old precedent in Texas library case
NBC News
19-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Judge orders Trump administration to allow attorneys access to Venezuelan man in Salvadoran prison
A federal judge in Texas ordered the Trump administration on Monday to facilitate contact between a Venezuelan man deported to El Salvador and his lawyers, giving the federal government until Wednesday afternoon to do so. It's the first such order in the mounting legal saga surrounding President Donald Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of men to a supermax prison in El Salvador notorious for human rights abuses. The Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, offers zero contact between inmates and the outside world, including their lawyers and families. The order by judge Keith P. Ellison of the Southern District of Texas gives the government 24 hours to confirm the location of the plaintiff — a 24-year-old Venezuelan man — and 48 hours to 'restore and help maintain attorney-client communication' with him. 'This shows that the court is as concerned as we are as to the whereabouts of this individual and the illegal justification for his continued detention,' said Javier Rivera, the Houston lawyer representing Widmer Josneyder Agelviz Sanguino, the incarcerated Venezuelan man. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal government has been ordered before, including by the Supreme Court, to facilitate the return to the United States of people deported to El Salvador, most notably Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and has argued in response that it has no jurisdiction or ability to do so. Until now, it has not been ordered to facilitate contact between inmates and their lawyers. Agelviz initially traveled to the United States in September with his mother and two younger brothers as part of the U.S.'s refugee resettlement program, a process that involves extensive vetting and background checks. When they arrived at the airport in Houston, immigration agents detained Agelviz. Documents reviewed by NBC News show that Agelviz was detained because of a tattoo on his forearm that includes a clock and a rose, images a CBP agent wrote are 'associated' with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The documents show he had no criminal record and there was no additional evidence linking him to the gang. 'My son is not a gang member,' said Lisbeth Carolina Sanguino, Agelviz's mother, who is now living in San Antonio with her two other sons. 'He's a young man who's never hurt anyone.' Sanguino hired a lawyer to prove her son's innocence in immigration court. But only two weeks before the immigration court case was set to be resolved, Agelviz and hundreds of other men from Venezuela were shipped with no warning or court hearings to El Salvadors. Attorneys for the men argue that their sudden deportation violated their due process, an issue now at the center of legal challenges to return them to the United States and prevent further similar deportations. Advocates and lawyers representing the men in CECOT have found that a majority of them had no criminal record. Many also did not violate any immigration laws when they came to the US, according to a recent analysis by the Cato Institute, often crossing the U.S.-Mexico border with appointments under the CBP One app. But at least three, including Agelviz, came to the United States under the refugee resettlement program, according to Michelle Brané, executive director of Together and Free, a nonprofit assisting more than a hundred families of deported Venezuelans. Applicants for refugee status go through months of vetting conducted at the migrant's location abroad, not at the border, including extensive background checks by both U.S. and international law enforcement agencies to ensure the individual does not pose a public safety threat to the United States. 'Refugees are always very carefully screened before they are admitted into the United States,' Brané said. 'It seems particularly unlikely that they would have made it through that entire process and really have some serious indication of being such a dangerous criminal.' In a statement, a White House official told NBC News that 'DHS intelligence assessments go well beyond just gang affiliate tattoos and social media. Tren De Aragua is one of the most violent and ruthless terrorist gangs on planet earth. They rape, maim, and murder for sport. President Trump and Secretary Noem will not allow criminal gangs to terrorize American citizens. ' The statement did not offer any additional evidence linking any of the refugees deported to CECOT to Tren de Aragua or to criminal activity of any kind. However, the official added: 'We are confident in our law enforcement's intelligence, and we aren't going to share intelligence reports and undermine national security every time a gang member denies he is one. That would be insane.' The Department of Homeland Security document explaining the reasons for Agelviz's detention indicates that he had no criminal record or incriminating information in his social media. It lists no evidence of gang affiliation beyond his tattoos. Those tattoos, Sanguino said, are references to her son's childhood: his grandmother's rose garden, and an owl that visited their home every night at 3 a.m., which is the time shown on the clock. 'I never approved of the tattoos,' Sanguino said. 'But he asked me so much that when he turned 18, I finally said, 'Go ahead, but I don't want to see them.'' Agelviz also tattooed his mother's name and his brothers' initials on his arm. 'He thought because he got my name tattooed that I wouldn't get mad at him,' she said. Her two younger sons do not have tattoos. When they applied for refugee status and went through the screening process, which lasted around 10 months and involved several in-person interviews during which Agelviz was asked about his tattoos, the family was living in Ecuador. They had fled Venezuela for reasons they asked not to divulge in order to protect family members still at risk. The refugee program is reserved for people fleeing armed conflict and targeted persecution; it is rarely granted to Venezuelans or other migrants from the Americas, and is typically associated with people fleeing war in the Middle East and Africa. Like all loved ones of men deported to CECOT, Sanguino has had no contact with her son for more than two months. 'It's very difficult for me as a mother to have to imagine the situation my son is in without being able to do anything about it, without knowing how he is,' she said. 'How is his health, how is he eating, what is going through his mind?' The first and only glimpse at the conditions under which the men are being held came last week, when former congressman Matt Gaetz, as part of his show on One America News, accompanied a congressional delegation to the wing of CECOT holding Venezuelan deportees. (No other press outlets have been allowed access to this wing of the facility.) The prisoners there repeatedly shouted 'Liberty!' and made the international hand signal for help. Watching the video, Sanguino said, only made things harder. 'I eat and I feel guilty, because I don't know what he's eating, or if he's eating,' Sanguino said. She often wakes up anxious thinking of him. 'And I want to think that it's a nightmare, but feel sad every time I remember that it's reality.'
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rebukes Texas judges, backs hearing before deportation for detained Venezuelans
The Supreme Court on Friday told conservative judges in Texas they must offer a hearing to detained Venezuelans whom the Trump administration wants to send to a prison in El Salvador. The justices, over two dissents, rebuked Texas judges and Trump's lawyers for moving quickly and secretly on a weekend in mid-April to put these men on planes. That led to a post-midnight order from the high court that told the administration it may "not remove any member of the putative class of detainees." The administration had argued it had the authority to deport the men as "alien enemies" under a wartime law adopted in 1798. On Friday, the court issued an unusual eight-page order to explain their earlier decision. In doing so, the justices faulted a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for taking no action to protect the due process rights of the detained men. The order carries a clear message that the justices are troubled by the Trump administration's pressure to fast-track deportations and by the unwillingness of some judges to protect the rights to due process of law. On a Saturday in mid-March, Trump's immigration officials sent three planeloads of detainees from Texas to the maximum-security prison in El Salvador before a federal judge in Washington could intervene. The prisoners included Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who had an immigration order that was supposed to protect him from being sent back to his native El Salvador. Afterward, Trump officials said the detained men, including Abrego Garcia, could not be returned to this country. They did so even though the Supreme Court had said they had a duty to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return. The same scenario was nearly repeated in mid-April, but from a different prison in Texas. Read more: Supreme Court temporarily halts more Venezuelan detainee removals under Alien Enemies Act ACLU lawyers rushed to file an emergency appeal with U.S. District Judge James Hendrix. They said some of the detained men were on buses headed for the airport. They argued they deserved a hearing because many of them said they were not members of a crime gang. The judge denied the appeals for all but two of the detained men. The 5th Circuit Court upheld the judge's lack of action and blamed the detainees, saying they gave the judge "only 42 minutes to act." The Supreme Court disagreed with both on Friday and overturned a decision of the 5th Circuit. "Here, the district court's inaction — not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes — had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm," the justices wrote. "The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect' against 'the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property," the majority said. "We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard." Justices Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court rebukes Texas judges, backs hearing before deportation for detained Venezuelans
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday told conservative judges in Texas they must offer a hearing to detained Venezuelans whom the Trump administration wants to send to a prison in El Salvador. The justices, over two dissents, rebuked Texas judges and Trump's lawyers for moving quickly and secretly on a weekend in mid-April to put these men on planes. That led to a post-midnight order from the high court that told the administration it may 'not remove any member of the putative class of detainees.' The administration had argued it had the authority to deport the men as 'alien enemies' under a wartime law adopted in 1798. On Friday, the court issued an unusual eight-page order to explain their earlier decision. In doing so, the justices faulted a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for taking no action to protect the due process rights of the detained men. The order carries a clear message that the justices are troubled by the Trump administration's pressure to fast-track deportations and by the unwillingness of some judges to protect the rights to due process of law. On a Saturday in mid-March, Trump's immigration officials send three planeloads of detainees from Texas to the maximum security prison in El Salvador before a federal judge in Washington could intervene. The prisoners included Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who had an immigration order that was supposed to protect him from being send back to his native El Salvador. Afterward, Trump officials said the detained men, including Abrego Garcia, could not be returned to this country. They did so even though the Supreme Court had said they had a duty to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return. The same scenario was nearly repeated in mid-April, but from a different prison in Texas. ACLU lawyers rushed to file an emergency appeal with U.S. District Judge James Hendrix. They said some of the detained men were on buses headed for the airport. They argued they deserved a hearing because many of them said they were not members of a crime gang. The judge denied the appeals for all but two of the detained men. The 5th Circuit Court upheld the judge's lack of action and blamed the detainees, saying they gave the judge 'only 42 minutes to act.' The Supreme Court disagreed with both on Friday and overturned a decision of the 5th Circuit. 'A district court's inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of serious, perhaps irreparable consequences' for the detained men, the justices wrote. 'Here, the district court's inaction — not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes — had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm.' 'The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect' against 'the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,' the majority said. 'We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.' Justices Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday.
