The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently upheld a decision by Llano County, Texas, allowing the removal of 17 books from its library system. This reversal from a lower court ruling highlights an evolving discussion surrounding First Amendment rights and the governance of public libraries. In the majority opinion, authored by Judge Kyle Duncan, the court concluded that while there exists a right to receive information, it does not obligate the government to supply taxpayer-funded library books.
The ruling emphasized that the decision-making process of libraries is considered government speech, which is not subject to free speech challenges under the First Amendment. Judge Duncan elaborated that recognizing a right to always contest library book selections could result in systemic stagnation, given the likelihood of continuous disputes over the choice of books purchased or maintained by libraries. He cited the Llano County panel’s divergent opinions on nearly half of the books that were initially selected for removal, underlining the complexity of such decisions and the absence of a clear standard for judicial intervention.
Judge Duncan further clarified that curatorial choices in libraries are akin to similar expressive activities, such as selecting newspaper stories or museum exhibits. By managing library collections, the government is effectively imparting judgment on what it deems worthwhile for public reading. The court additionally rejected expanding the public forum doctrine to library content. As succinctly noted in the opinion, “Library shelves are not a community bulletin board.”(Court Opinion)
The decision comes amidst broader discussions on book removal from educational and public library settings in the US, particularly relating to the boundaries of free speech in these arenas. The plaintiffs, patrons of the Llano County library, posited that the removal constituted an infringement of their unenumerated First Amendment right to receive information. However, Llano County defended its actions, stating the removed titles fell under the library’s standard Continuous Review, Evaluation, and Weeding (CREW) process, which is designed to make space for new materials. The selection criteria were codified under the “MUSTIE” designation, which stands for Misleading, Ugly, Superseded, Trivial, Irrelevant, and Elsewhere.(JURIST Article)
This legal interpretation resonates with the overarching issue of balancing curatorial discretion with freedom of speech principles, a subject steeped in legal history and precedent as seen in cases such as Island Trees School District v. Pico.