Texas Freedom to Read Project Responds to Supreme Court’s Denial in Little v. Llano

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to take up Little v. Llano County, allowing the en-banc decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to stand. We at Texas Freedom to Read Project are disappointed and gravely concerned about what this means not only for Texans, Mississippians, and Louisianans (those in the Fifth Circuit), but for the future of libraries and the freedom to read across this country.

The upheld Fifth Circuit majority concluded that public-library patrons have no constitutional First Amendment right to receive information in a public library and the concurring opinion went further and held that libraries’ decisions about which books to keep or remove  are “government speech,” immune from constitutional challenge.  

But the Fifth Circuit got this case wrong and their reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and so too is leaving a precedent in place that empowers local officials to purge ideas from libraries simply because they find them objectionable. By declining to review the case, the Supreme Court has allowed that logic to stand, ultimately allowing public libraries to become government propaganda centers. That means, right now, there’s very little stopping government officials from stripping libraries of books they personally don’t like, whether that be books about race, religion, history, identity, or anything that makes them uncomfortable. Whoever holds the political power decides what goes on library shelves.  

In our amicus brief filed on behalf of the plaintiffs we argued:

“Courts have held that an individual’s personal, religious, or social beliefs cannot justify a book’s removal from a library — yet in this case, defendants seek to do just that.” 

“Such is the beauty of a public library: it is open to all … if a parent wishes to prevent her child from reading a particular book … that parent can and should accompany the child to the Library — and should not prevent all children in the community from gaining access to constitutionally protected materials.” 

We pointed out that libraries serve as vital democratic institutions: public libraries exist to provide everyone in a community with access to a broad, diverse, and robust collection of ideas. What one parent finds inappropriate, another family might need. And if a parent doesn’t want their child reading a book, they can guide their own child, not decide what every child in the community can access. 

The dissenting judges in the Fifth Circuit agreed. As Judge Stephen A. Higginson wrote, the majority “overturns decades of settled First Amendment law,” discards the precedent of older cases such as Board of Education v. Pico, and “omits material facts” about why the books were removed. Judge Higginson concluded:

“What is happening today is not a neutral, routine decision; it is a politically motivated effort to deny public access to disfavored ideas.”

And let’s be clear: this was never just about keeping kids safe from “sexually explicit” materials. The list of 17 books at the center of this case makes that obvious. There were silly kids books about farting alongside serious works about racism, LGBTQ+ identity, civil rights, and sexual health. Books like Caste, Freddie the Farting Snowman, They Called Themselves the K.K.K., Being Jazz, Gabi, a Girl in Pieces, absolutely none of these books are obscene. They were targeted because of their ideas and the perspectives they represent.

So when officials claim this was about “protecting children,” it simply doesn’t hold up. What’s really happening is an effort to control which ideas people, especially young people,  are allowed to encounter. And when government officials start deciding which viewpoints are acceptable and which ones have to disappear from public shelves, that’s government censorship. 

If the logic of Little v. Llano stands unchallenged, no child, no family, no community can be assured that their library’s shelves will remain open and inclusive of a variety of perspectives. Under this ruling, any group with enough influence can pressure librarians or officials to purge books that reflect perspectives, stories, and ideas that they don’t agree with. 

We reaffirm our commitment to defending the freedom to read. We will continue to fight for libraries that reflect the full richness of human experience and thought, not just what is acceptable to those with the most money and those currently holding the power. 

We’re especially grateful to the plaintiffs in this case for having the courage to stand up and push back, instead of sitting by while our civil liberties are chipped away. Their willingness to fight matters, and we need more of that from our fellow Texans and our fellow Americans. For the sake of children, families, and communities of all backgrounds: this moment must not mark the end of the freedom to read in Texas, but rather the beginning of renewed vigilance and activism.  

We’re calling on Americans everywhere to get involved and stand up for the future of our public and school libraries. These spaces must remain true bastions of free speech, places where a wide range of ideas and viewpoints coexist. Show up. Join your local library board, run for school board, attend your city or county meetings, whatever form it takes, your voice and your presence matters. 

Laney Hawes, Frank Strong, and Anne Russey

Co-Founders, Texas Freedom to Read Project

Media Questions: 

[email protected]