Book People, Incorporated v. Wong, 91 F.4th 318

In 2023, Texas enacted the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources Act (READER), requiring vendors selling books to public schools to label materials based on sexual content.
Plaintiffs—two Texas bookstores, three national trade associations, and a legal-defense organization—challenged READER, arguing it violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction against Texas Commissioner of Education Morath and other state officials, blocking enforcement of READER's vendor-rating requirements.
Texas appealed the preliminary injunction, focusing on whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed standing, ripeness, sovereign immunity, and the merits of the First Amendment challenge, affirming the injunction as to Commissioner Morath but vacating it as to two other state officials (Chairs Wong and Ellis).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Booksellers)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Compelled Speech under READER	READER unconstitutionally forces vendors to label books by sexual content, which is compelled speech.	READER's ratings are government speech, not private; compelled-speech doctrine does not apply; exceptions exist.	READER compels private speech and violates First Amendment; vendor ratings are not government speech.
Standing & Ripeness	Plaintiffs face imminent constitutional and economic injuries, sufficient for standing and ripeness.	No direct enforcement against vendors; harms are speculative and unripe.	Plaintiffs have standing and claims are ripe.
Sovereign Immunity / Ex parte Young	Commissioner Morath has sufficient connection to enforce READER; exception applies.	State officials only indirectly enforce READER; sovereign immunity bars the suit.	Morath sufficiently enforces READER; exception applies.
Preliminary Injunction—Other Officials	All named officials connected to enforcement and should remain enjoined.	Wong and Ellis lack enforcement authority over plaintiffs.	Injunction vacated as to Wong and Ellis; suit dismissed against them.

Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (First Amendment does not restrict content of government speech)
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (First Amendment protects right to refrain from speaking)
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (Government may require disclosure of purely factual and uncontroversial information in commercial speech)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (Government cannot compel an individual to speak or endorse messages with which they disagree)
All. for Hippocratic Med. v. FDA, 78 F.4th 210 (Standing requires injury fairly traceable to challenged statute)
Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (First Amendment protects right to receive information)
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (Student speech case; school ability to regulate expression)
Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (Student speech case; sexual content in schools)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (Loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)