Sign up for TPR Today, Texas Public Radio's newsletter that brings our top stories to your inbox each morning.
Seven groups representing authors, libraries, book publishers, and First Amendment supporters are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case of Little v. Llano County.
Leila Green Little and six other patrons of the Hill Country public library system filed suit in 2022 after government officials pulled 17 books from library shelves, arguing that the books were removed based on viewpoint discrimination.
In May, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed two earlier decisions, ruling that Llano County officials did not violate the First Amendment rights of library patrons by removing the books.
In briefs filed this week, the seven groups argued the Fifth Circuit's ruling sets up a dangerous precedent that contradicts the prevailing understanding of the First Amendment.
"The idea that libraries are places where, basically, the First Amendment doesn't apply, really flies in the face of everything we think about libraries and their historical role in society," said Elly Brinkley a staff attorney with PEN America, one of the organizations that filed a brief.
Brinkley said letting the Fifth Circuit ruling stand leaves library patrons in Texas and Louisiana with no recourse to fight book bans, and could lead to other circuit courts following suit.
"We're at risk of circuits across the country relying on that reasoning to allow the banning of books with impunity, and that is an unacceptable outcome," said Brinkley.
In their opinion, the Fifth Circuit said patrons do not have a right to receive information from the government, and that "a library's collection decisions are government speech and therefore not subject to Free Speech challenge."
"In order for the government to function, the government has to be able to speak, at times, free from ideological or viewpoint neutrality in order to get its message across," Brinkley said. "But it is a really radical misapplication of that doctrine to say that in the context of libraries, that governments have complete impunity to make their decisions based on their own ideological preferences."
Brinkley said both ideas represent "a really radical departure from the fundamental values of the First Amendment," but that the application of the government speech doctrine could have especially far-reaching consequences.
For instance, she said the same interpretation of the government speech doctrine is being used in Florida to support a law limiting what college professors can teach.
PEN America represents authors, and Brinkley said book bans have had a chilling effect on their work.
"We have heard time and again from writers how detrimental these book bans have been on their reputation, on their ability to make a living, and on their creative process," Brinkley said. "Writers really rely on public libraries to get their work out there. It's often a huge part of their sales, especially for writers of children's and young adult literature."
Leila Green Little and her co-plaintiffs filed a petition with the Supreme Court in September asking the court to take on their case. The seven briefs filed this week echo that petition.
Brinkley said a recent ruling in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals contradicts the Fifth Circuit's ruling, which could encourage the Supreme Court to take up the case and settle the matter.
But it's up to the members of the Supreme Court to decide if they will agree. It might be months before they decide, and then arguments will have to begin.
Copyright 2025 KSTX News
