Latest news with #FifthCircuitCourtofAppeals
Newsweek
30-05-2025
- General
- Newsweek
Censors Allowed to Remove Books From Libraries, Court Rules
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal appeals court has ruled that public library officials may remove books from shelves based on their content, the latest development in an ongoing national debate over censorship and free speech. On May 23, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling that said the removal of books based on their content likely violated patrons' First Amendment right to access information. Why It Matters The ruling marks a significant shift in the legal interpretation of First Amendment protections in public libraries, which have long been considered bastions of free expression. By granting library officials powers to remove books they deem inappropriate or ideologically objectionable, the Fifth Circuit has potentially empowered local governments to suppress certain ideas from public access. What To Know The case stems from a dispute in Llano County, Texas, where officials removed 17 books from the public library system in 2021 after receiving complaints from residents. The titles included books about the history of racism in the U.S., such as They Called Themselves the K.K.K.; a sex-education book for preteens; and books with LGBTQ+ themes, including Being Jazz by transgender activist Jazz Jennings. The list also includes a series of children's books with titles such as I Broke My Butt! and Larry the Farting Leprechaun. Books at the Rice University Library in Houston on April 26, 2022. Books at the Rice University Library in Houston on April 26, 2022.A group of residents sued, arguing that removing the books was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. A district court agreed, ordering officials to return the books to library shelves. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed that ruling in a 10–7 decision. Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in a 60-page majority opinion that "plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books." He contended that libraries' collections were "for expressive purposes," meaning "their collection decisions are therefore government speech." The ruling goes against past interpretations of Supreme Court precedent, which have broadly protected against viewpoint-based censorship in libraries. What People Are Saying Elly Brinkley, PEN America's attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs, said in a statement: "This astounding decision reveals either ignorance of the scale and danger of state censorship or deliberate indifference toward it. The record clearly shows that the government removed books based on politically-motivated viewpoint discrimination—a violation of constitutionally protected rights. "The court's embrace of the dangerous argument that the curation of library books constitutes 'government speech' immunizes state censorship from First Amendment scrutiny, essentially giving the government free rein to exert ideological control over what citizens can read in their public libraries." What Happens Next The Fifth Circuit's decision is binding in the states over which it has jurisdiction: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. However, the plaintiffs are expected to appeal the ruling, potentially setting the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court review that could define the future of content regulation in libraries across the country.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No right to information at public libraries, 5th Circuit rules
May 24 (UPI) -- A Texas public library did not violate patrons' right to free speech by removing books due to their content, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled on Friday. The entire appellate court, in a 10-7 decision, overturned federal district court and appellate court rulings finding the Llano County (Texas) Library System erred in removing 17 books due to their content. The courts initially ruled that library officials violated plaintiffs' right to receive information under the Constitution's Free Speech Clause by removing the books and ordered that they be returned to the library's shelves. The plaintiffs are seven library patrons who in 2022 filed a lawsuit challenging the removal of 17 books due to their "content on race, gender and sexuality as well as some children's books that contained nudity," the Austin American-Statesman reported. A federal district court and a three-judge appellate court panel each ruled against the library. The Fifth Circuit appellate court's en banc panel on Friday reversed the prior court decisions and dismissed the free speech claims against the Lloyd County Library System for two reasons. No right to receive information "Plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books," Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority decision. "Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech," Duncan continued. "Plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books," he said. "The First Amendment acknowledges no such right." Instead, a patron could order a book 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 collection," he said. Such decisions are very subjective, and it's impossible to find widespread agreement on a standard to determine which books should or should not be made available, the majority ruling says. "May a library remove a book because it dislikes its ideas? Because it finds the book vulgar? Sexist? Inaccurate? Outdated? Poorly written?" Duncan wrote. "Heaven knows." The plaintiffs "took the baffling view that libraries cannot even remove books that espouse racism," Duncan added. Public library collections are 'government speech' The majority decision also ruled that the library's collection decisions are government speech and not subject to First Amendment-based free speech challenges. Duncan said many precedents affirm that "curating and presenting a collection of third-party speech" is an "expressive activity." Examples include editors choosing which stories to publish, television stations choosing which programs to air and museum officials deciding what to feature in exhibits. "In the same way, a library expresses itself by deciding how to shape its collection," Duncan wrote. He cited another court's ruling that said governments speak through public libraries by selecting which books to make available and which ones to exclude. "From the moment they emerged in the 19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature," Duncan said. "Libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes," he said. "Their collection decisions are, therefore, government speech." He called arguments made in the case "over-caffeinated" and said plaintiffs warned of "book bans," "pyres of burned books," and "totalitarian regimes." "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," one brief filed by plaintiffs claimed, according to Duncan. "Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books," he said. Won't 'join the book burners' Judge Stephen Higginson was joined by six others in a lengthy dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court in prior rulings affirmed the right to receive information and the right to be "free from officially prescribed orthodoxy," Higginson said. "Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas," Higginson wrote. "But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County Public Library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas," he said. The majority "forsakes core First Amendment principles and controlling Supreme Court law," he wrote. "Because I would not have our court 'join the book burners,'" Higginson said, "I dissent."
UPI
25-05-2025
- Politics
- UPI
No right to information at public libraries, 5th Circuit rules
A Texas county public library did not violate patrons' free speech rights by removing 17 titles from its shelves, an en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 10-7 decision on Friday. Photo by Activedia/Pixabay May 24 (UPI) -- A Texas public library did not violate patrons' right to free speech by removing books due to their content, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled on Friday. The entire appellate court, in a 10-7 decision, overturned federal district court and appellate court rulings finding the Llano County (Texas) Library System erred in removing 17 books due to their content. The courts initially ruled that library officials violated plaintiffs' right to receive information under the Constitution's Free Speech Clause by removing the books and ordered that they be returned to the library's shelves. The plaintiffs are seven library patrons who in 2022 filed a lawsuit challenging the removal of 17 books due to their "content on race, gender and sexuality as well as some children's books that contained nudity," the Austin American-Statesman reported. A federal district court and a three-judge appellate court panel each ruled against the library. The Fifth Circuit appellate court's en banc panel on Friday reversed the prior court decisions and dismissed the free speech claims against the Lloyd County Library System for two reasons. No right to receive information "Plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books," Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority decision. "Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech," Duncan continued. "Plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books," he said. "The First Amendment acknowledges no such right." Instead, a patron could order a book 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 collection," he said. Such decisions are very subjective, and it's impossible to find widespread agreement on a standard to determine which books should or should not be made available, the majority ruling says. "May a library remove a book because it dislikes its ideas? Because it finds the book vulgar? Sexist? Inaccurate? Outdated? Poorly written?" Duncan wrote. "Heaven knows." The plaintiffs "took the baffling view that libraries cannot even remove books that espouse racism," Duncan added. Public library collections are 'government speech' The majority decision also ruled that the library's collection decisions are government speech and not subject to First Amendment-based free speech challenges. Duncan said many precedents affirm that "curating and presenting a collection of third-party speech" is an "expressive activity." Examples include editors choosing which stories to publish, television stations choosing which programs to air and museum officials deciding what to feature in exhibits. "In the same way, a library expresses itself by deciding how to shape its collection," Duncan wrote. He cited another court's ruling that said governments speak through public libraries by selecting which books to make available and which ones to exclude. "From the moment they emerged in the 19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature," Duncan said. "Libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes," he said. "Their collection decisions are, therefore, government speech." He called arguments made in the case "over-caffeinated" and said plaintiffs warned of "book bans," "pyres of burned books," and "totalitarian regimes." "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," one brief filed by plaintiffs claimed, according to Duncan. "Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books," he said. Won't 'join the book burners' Judge Stephen Higginson was joined by six others in a lengthy dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court in prior rulings affirmed the right to receive information and the right to be "free from officially prescribed orthodoxy," Higginson said. "Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas," Higginson wrote. "But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County Public Library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas," he said. The majority "forsakes core First Amendment principles and controlling Supreme Court law," he wrote. "Because I would not have our court 'join the book burners,'" Higginson said, "I dissent."
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court rules libraries have right to ‘government speech', can remove books based on content
AUSTIN (KXAN) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that libraries can take books off shelves based on their content, reversing a district court's decision in a case involving the Llano County Library. KXAN reached out to the parties in the case, and will update this story if we receive responses. Katherine P. Chiarello, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told KXAN in an email that their team is considering its next steps. 'It is very disappointing that, today, the Fifth Circuit has regressed from its long standing protection of a citizen's right to receive information under the First Amendment and that it has attempted to create a circuit split by dramatically expanding the scope of the government speech doctrine,' Chiarello said. In Friday's ruling, Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote that the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not grant a right to receive information. 'Yes, Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech. But plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books. The First Amendment acknowledges no such right,' Duncan wrote. 2024: Texas county removed 17 books from its libraries. An appeals court says eight must be returned The ruling calls this a relief, and that application of such a right 'would be a nightmare.' 'How would judges decide when removing a book is forbidden? No one in this case—not plaintiffs, nor the district court, nor the panel—can agree on a standard,' the ruling reads. The appeals court also said court precedence holds that collection decisions are speech. In this case, a decision would be 'government speech' protected by the First Amendment. 'From the moment they emerged in the mid-19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature. What is considered worthwhile, of course, evolves over the years,' said the court. 'But what has not changed is the fact, as true today as it was in 1850, that libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes. Their collection decisions are therefore government speech.' The justices also took aim at what it called 'unusually over-caffeinated arguments' made by the case's plaintiffs. 'Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library. One amicus intones: 'Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people,'' the ruling reads. 'All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections.' It said that readers who can't find a book are allowed to seek the book out elsewhere. The plaintiffs in the case could also try to look elsewhere, specifically to the US Supreme Court, for a potentially favorable ruling. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Judge Slams Supreme Court, Says Courts Are ‘Not a Denny's'
Last week, the Supreme Court blocked Donald Trump from continuing to use an archaic wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process, after the administration sent hundreds of people to prison in El Salvador this way. In a 7-2 decision, the justices vacated a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with a note that the lower court had taken too long to consider issuing an emergency restraining order to block a group of immigrants' imminent deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The majority found that the Trump administration had not given the detainees adequate notice of their removal nor information about how to challenge it, and sent the case back to the appeals court for further proceedings. Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho — a Trump appointee widely considered a potential favorite for a high court seat should one become available — is not happy about this. He registered his disappointment Tuesday in a concurrence attached to the order where the Fifth Circuit added the case back to its docket, per the Supreme Court's demand. It's a remarkable piece of writing, designed for an audience of one. If there's any question about that, Ho apologizes directly to Trump several times, suggesting the Supreme Court is treating him unfairly. Ho excoriates the court for expecting judges to 'be available 24 hours a day,' even though statute dictates that federal courts are always open for filing motions and orders. He appears to have his mind made up about the petitioners being terrorist gang members, as the administration claims. 'Petitioners, identified as members of Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization, should not be allowed to proceed in this appeal,' Ho writes. 'As an inferior court, we're duty-bound to follow Supreme Court rulings — whether we agree with them or not. We don't have to like it. But we have to do it,' he continues. 'So I concur in our order today expediting our consideration of this matter, as directed by the Supreme Court. But I write to state my sincere concerns about how the district judge as well as the president and other officials have been treated in this case.' Ho insists that the Fifth Circuit was right to refuse an emergency appeal in the case, which involves Venezuelan migrants who were reportedly loaded onto buses and prepped for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act, potentially to El Salvador, without fair opportunity to contest their removal. He argues the district court had been asked to comply with a 'patently unreasonable timetable' — 42 minutes — to halt the deportations. As the Supreme Court noted last week, the petitioners first requested a temporary restraining order at 12:34 a.m. on April 18. They then filed at 12:48 p.m. to demand a ruling or conference on that order by 1:30 p.m. The petitioners soon filed emergency appeals with the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, and the high court issued an order after midnight on April 19 temporarily halting the deportations. In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court found that '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.' Ho is apoplectic about this — and not just because he believes the Trump administration should have been afforded 24 hours to respond to the emergency petition seeking to stop its imminent deportation of immigrants out of the country to a Salvadoran prison, or perhaps another deliberately cruel locale. (Trump reportedly just deported Asian immigrants to South Sudan.) The judge writes that 'starting the clock at 12:34 a.m. not only ignores the [district] court's express instructions respecting the government's right to respond. It also ignores the fact that the court is starting the clock at — 12:34 a.m.' 'We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court — not a Denny's,' he continues, referring to the 24/7 diner chain. 'This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.' He adds, 'If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so: District judges are hereby expected to be available 24 hours a day — and the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S. courts should secure from Congress the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country. If this is not to become the norm, then we should admit that this is special treatment being afforded to certain favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua — and we should stop pretending that Lady Justice is blindfolded.' As Patrick Jaicomo, a civil rights litigator at the center-right Institute for Justice notes, besides Ho choosing to offer 'prejudicial statements' about the petitioners being gang members, 'his complaint about court hours is puzzling in light of 28 USC 452.' That statute reads: 'All courts of the United States shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing proper papers, issuing and returning process, and making motions and orders.' Ho apologizes again to Trump. 'The district judge is not the only public official whose treatment in this case warrants comment,' he writes. 'Recall why the district court established a 24-hour filing deadline. The court firmly believed that the government should have the right to express its views before any ruling is issued. And rightly so.' Ho continues, 'It should go without saying that the president and his fellow executive branch officials deserve the same respect that courts regularly afford every other litigant — including other presidents and officials.' He then writes that Barack Obama 'tried to shame members of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address by disparaging a recent ruling' — referring to when Obama said that the court's 2010 Citizens United ruling 'will open the floodgates for special interests… to spend without limit in our elections.' (It did.) Ho adds that Bill Clinton 'was disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court,' reportedly in relation to sexual harassment investigations. (Clinton resigned rather than fight disbarment before the Supreme Court.) 'Yet I doubt that any court would deny any of those presidents the right to express their views in any pending case to which they are a party, before issuing any ruling,' Ho concludes. 'Our current president deserves the same respect.' The federal courts aren't a Denny's — but Ho, the Fifth Circuit judge, has cooked up a Grand Slam for Trump. More from Rolling Stone Live Nation Names Trump Crony Ric Grenell to Its Board of Directors Trump Allegedly Violates Court Order, Sends Asian Immigrants to South Sudan Neil Young Stands With Taylor Swift, Bruce Springsteen in Trump's Musician War: 'You Work for Us' Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
