A federal appeals court ruled libraries can remove books without violating free speech, sparking a likely Supreme Court clash over censorship and local control.
At a Glance
- Texas’s 5th Circuit Court ruled 10–7 that public libraries may remove books based on content without violating the First Amendment
- The decision overturned a previous order requiring Llano County to return 17 books targeted for removal
- Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan clarified that the ruling doesn’t ban books—just affirms libraries’ discretion
- The majority framed library decisions as “government speech,” sparking a circuit split with the 8th Circuit
- Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to review the case due to the constitutional implications
Court Sides with Community Standards
In a landmark decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that public libraries may remove books without violating patrons’ First Amendment rights, affirming the authority of local governments to curate collections aligned with community values. The 10–7 ruling reversed a lower court’s order that required Llano County to restore 17 titles removed after citizen complaints.
Writing for the majority, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan emphasized that “no one is banning books,” and that patrons can still purchase or access removed materials elsewhere. He argued that “plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library’s removal of books,” echoing long-held legal distinctions between personal access and government-funded content.
Dissent Warns of Censorship Precedent
Dissenting judges, led by Stephen Higginson, described the ruling as a “regression” from the First Amendment’s protection of access to information. Higginson warned that libraries could become “sites of frightful government censorship,” particularly for communities without alternate means of accessing diverse viewpoints.
Opponents argue that the court’s interpretation of “government speech” risks giving local officials carte blanche to suppress ideas they find controversial. “Libraries provide critical access to books for many Americans who cannot afford to buy every book that draws their interest,” Higginson wrote.
A Supreme Court Test Ahead?
The ruling contradicts a prior 8th Circuit decision that rejected the notion that library curation is government speech, setting up a likely Supreme Court review. With the circuit split now formalized, the high court could be called upon to decide whether library content decisions are protected expressions of government priorities—or unconstitutional censorship.
Supporters of the decision see it as a victory for democratic accountability. “All Llano County has done is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collection,” Duncan wrote. “What is considered worthwhile evolves, but libraries curate for expressive purposes.”
As the case advances, it will test not only legal limits on censorship but also deeper questions about who decides what’s appropriate for taxpayer-funded institutions. For now, the 5th Circuit has sided with local governance over national norms—setting the stage for a high-stakes battle at the top.
