Latest news with #StuartKyleDuncan
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
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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.
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
