5th Circuit judge blasts 'overcaffeinated arguments' by library patrons challenging book removals
An en banc federal appeals court overturned its 1995 decision last month when it ruled for a library that removed 17 books with themes that included racism, gender identity and sexuality.
In a 10-7 decision, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans tossed the First Amendment claims by library patrons in Llano County, Texas, who argued that they had a right to receive information under the free speech clause.
“It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book. The First Amendment protects your right to do that,” wrote 5th Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan in a portion of his May 23 opinion joined by nine other judges. “It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you the right to demand that.”
In an introduction to his opinion, Duncan said U.S. Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects the right to receive someone else’s speech.
“But plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books. The First Amendment acknowledges no such right,” wrote Duncan, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term.
“That is a relief because trying to apply it would be a nightmare,” Duncan continued in the introduction. “How would judges decide when removing a book is forbidden? No one in this case—not plaintiffs, nor the district court, nor the panel—can agree on a standard. May a library remove a book because it dislikes its ideas? Because it finds the book vulgar? Sexist? Inaccurate? Outdated? Poorly written? Heaven knows.”
Duncan was among 10 judges who agreed that there is no First Amendment right to challenge book removals. Another section of Duncan’s opinion, which stated that library collections constitute protected government speech, did not garner a majority. Nor did Duncan’s sometimes-snarky introduction command a majority.
“We note with amusement (and some dismay) the unusually overcaffeinated arguments made in this case,” Duncan wrote in the introduction. “Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library.”
The case is Little v. Llano County.
Law.com, Education Week and the Washington Times are among the publications with coverage. How Appealing noted the decision and linked to the opinion.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
