103 F.4th 1140
5th Cir.2024Background
- Seven Llano County library patrons sued after the county removed 17 titles (children’s “butt-and-fart” books, young‑adult and LGBT+ books, books on race, Sendak’s In the Night Kitchen, and a sex‑education title) from open shelves and/or the searchable catalog in 2021–2022.
- Removals followed constituent complaints and a forwarded list (the “Wallace list”); the county thereafter reorganized the library board and appointed some complainants to it.
- Library director Milum testified she pulled the listed titles after receiving the Wallace list and at the direction of county officials; defendants invoked the CREW/MUSTIE weeding process as the official rationale.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction requiring return of the removed books to publicly visible shelves and catalog availability; the district court granted a broad injunction and enjoined any removals during the suit.
- The Fifth Circuit panel affirmed (finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on First Amendment grounds), but narrowed the injunction to require restoration of eight specified titles, catalog updates, and a prior‑notice procedure for future removals; it also held the district injunction was overbroad as written.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removals violated the First Amendment by targeting viewpoint/content | Plaintiffs: removals were substantially motivated by disagreement with the books’ messages and denied patrons’ right to receive ideas | Defendants: removals were routine, neutral weeding under CREW/MUSTIE (or government speech) | Court: Likely success for plaintiffs — evidence supported that substantial motivation was to suppress disfavored viewpoints/content (applies Campbell/Pico principles) |
| Applicability of library discretion cases (ALA) vs. Pico/Campbell standard | Plaintiffs: Pico/Campbell restrict removal when motivation is to deny access to ideas | Defendants: ALA and government‑speech doctrines grant broad discretion to curate collections | Held: Court harmonized precedents — libraries may consider content, but may not remove books substantially motivated by a desire to deny access to ideas; ALA does not immunize viewpoint‑based removals |
| Irreparable harm and preliminary‑injunction factors | Plaintiffs: concealing books behind‑desk and out of catalog imposes irreparable First Amendment injury (loss of anonymous, passive access) | Defendants: in‑house checkout or digital access moots injury; burden of injunction outweighs harm | Held: District court did not clearly err — plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm and the other injunction factors favored relief |
| Scope and tailoring of preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs sought return of all books removed for viewpoint/content; broad ban on removals during suit | Defendants: injunction was overbroad and barred lawful removals | Held: Panel affirmed injunction in substance but modified it as overbroad — limited mandated returns to specified titles, ordered catalog updates, and required prior written notice/reasons for future removals rather than a blanket prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) (plurality) (public officials may not remove library books if the decisive motive is to deny access to ideas with which they disagree)
- United States v. Am. Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. 194 (2003) (plurality) (public libraries have broad discretion in collection decisions though the opinion is fractured)
- Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd., 64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995) (applying Pico: key inquiry is whether removers’ substantial motivation was to deny access to objectionable ideas)
- Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) (recognition of a right to receive information and ideas cited in discussion of the right to receive speech)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government speech doctrine; government selection of monuments constitutes government speech)