Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`No. 23-50224
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`LEILA GREEN LITTLE, JEANNE PURYEAR, KATHY KENNEDY,
`REBECCA JONES, RICHARD DAY, CYNTHIA WARING
`AND DIANE MOSTER,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LLANO COUNTY, RON CUNNINGHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`LLANO COUNTY JUDGE, JERRY DON MOSS, IN HIS OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PETER JONES, IN
`HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY COMMISSIONER, MIKE
`SANDOVAL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY
`COMMISSIONER, LINDA RASCHKE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`LLANO COUNTY COMMISSIONER, AMBER MILUM, IN HER OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM DIRECTOR,
`BONNIE WALLACE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY
`LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER, ROCHELLE WELLS, IN HER OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER, RHODA
`SCHNEIDER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY
`LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER AND GAY BASKIN, IN HER OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY AS LLANO COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court,
`For the Western Division of Texas, Austin Division
`1:22-cv-00424-RP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION,
`TEXAS LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, AND AMERICAN LIBRARY
`ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE
`
`(Counsel Listed Inside Cover)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`Ryan W. Goellner
`FROST BROWN TODD LLP
`301 E. Fourth Street
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`T: (513) 651-6840
`F: (513) 651-6981
`rgoellner@fbtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Thomas F. Allen, Jr.
`FROST BROWN TODD LLP
`2101 Cedar Springs Rd.
`Suite 900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`T: (214) 545-3472
`F: (214) 545-3473
`tfallen@fbtlaw.com
`
`
`Kevin Shook
`FROST BROWN TODD LLP
`10 W. Broad Street
`Suite 2300
`Columbus, Ohio 43215
`T: (614) 464-1211
`F: (614) 464-1737
`kshook@fbtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae Freedom to Read Foundation,
`Texas Library Association, and American Library Association
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
`
`Case No. 23-50224, Leila Green Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al.
`
`Pursuant to 5TH CIR. RULES 28.2.1 and 29.2, I hereby certify that I am aware
`
`of no persons or entities, in addition to those listed in the party briefs, that have a
`
`financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. I certify that the Freedom to Read
`
`Foundation (FTRF) is a not-for-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the
`
`Internal Revenue Code; and that FTRF, as a not-for-profit organization, has no
`
`parent corporation or stock, and therefore no publicly owned corporation owns ten
`
`percent or more of its stock. I certify that the Texas Library Association (TLA) is a
`
`not-for-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code;
`
`and that TLA, as a not-for-profit organization, has no parent corporation or stock,
`
`and therefore no publicly owned corporation owns ten percent or more of its stock.
`
`Finally, I certify that the American Library Association (ALA) is a not-for-profit
`
`organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and that ALA,
`
`as a not-for-profit organization, has no parent corporation or stock, and therefore no
`
`publicly owned corporation owns ten percent or more of its stock. These
`
`representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate possible
`
`disqualification or recusal.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Thomas F. Allen, Jr.
`Thomas F. Allen, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Supplemental Certificate of Interested Persons ........................................................ ii
`
`Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... iii
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................... v
`
`Statement of Interest Of Amici Curiae ...................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Contributions ........................................................................................ 2
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Argument.................................................................................................................... 4
`
`I.
`
`Following the First Amendment is not a “burden” for librarians. .................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Public libraries are citadels of American democracy. ........................... 4
`
`Librarians are guided by well-established ethical canons
`and standards that favor no party, subject, or viewpoint. ..................... 7
`
`C.
`
`The First Amendment requires no more—or less. ................................ 9
`
`II.
`
`“Weeding” library collections is an objective process, not the
`targeted removal of disfavored or controversial books. ................................ 11
`
`A. Weeding guidelines provide an objective framework for
`maintaining library collections. ........................................................... 12
`
`B.
`
`Appellants’ actions bear no resemblance to standard
`“weeding” practices. ............................................................................ 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Appellants targeted specific books for their
`subject-matter or perceived viewpoint, which has
`no place in “weeding.” .............................................................. 16
`
`Appellants cannot fit their conduct within standard
`“weeding” practices. ................................................................. 17
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`III. Libraries are not secret clubs, where only patrons with special
`knowledge may access controversial titles. ................................................... 20
`
`Conclusion ...............................................................................................................26
`
`Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................28
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley,
`458 U.S. 176 (1982) ............................................................................................ 24
`
`Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico,
`457 U.S. 853 (1982) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Campbell v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd.,
`64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995) .................................................................... 10, 11, 19
`
`Chiras v. Miller,
`432 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 10
`
`Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intel. Ctr.,
`548 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 10
`
`Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. by and through Levy,
`141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021) ........................................................................................ 19
`
`Minarcini v. Strongville City Sch. Dist.,
`541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................ 6, 9
`
`Pierce v. Soc. of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary,
`268 U.S. 510 (1925) ............................................................................................ 24
`
`Stanley v. Georgia,
`394 U.S. 557 (1969) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Sund v. City of Wichita Falls,
`121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000) ................................................... 10, 22, 24
`
`United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc.,
`539 U.S. 194 (2003) .................................................................................... 5, 6, 10
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes, Rules, Constitutional Provisions
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 29 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`U.S. CONST. amend. I ........................................................................................passim
`
`13 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 1.84 ..................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/faq (last
`visited June 1, 2023) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`CAROL ALABASTER, DEVELOPING AN OUTSTANDING CORE
`COLLECTION (2d ed. 2010) .................................................................................. 22
`
`AM. LIBR. ASS’N, CODE OF ETHICS, https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics
`(last visited June 1, 2023) ............................................................................... 8, 11
`
`AM. LIBR. ASS’N, LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS,
`https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (last visited
`June 1, 2023) ..................................................................................... 6, 8, 9, 11, 19
`
`AM. LIBR. ASS’N: RESOURCE GUIDES, “Definition of a Library,”
`https://libguides.ala.org/library-definition (last visited June 1,
`2023) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Lester Asheim, Not Censorship But Selection, AM. LIBR.
`ASS’N,www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/NotCensorshipButSelect
`ion.................................................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`John Buschman, Everyday Life, Everyday Democracy in Libraries:
`Toward Articulating the Relationship, THE POLITICAL LIBRARIAN,
`Vol. 4, Issue 1, 18 (June 2018),
`https://journals.library.wustl.edu/pollib/article/8545/galley/25378/v
`iew/ .................................................................................................................. 6, 20
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`GEOFFREY CHAUCER, THE CANTERBURY TALES, The Miller’s Tale,
`https://chaucer.fas.harvard.edu/pages/millers-prologue-and-tale ....................... 19
`
`Collection Maintenance and Weeding, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/
`weeding (last visited June 1, 2023) ......................................................... 12, 13, 15
`
`Wynne Davis, How Harry Potter Has Brought Magic to Classrooms
`For More Than 20 Years, NAT’L PUBLIC RADIO (Dec. 31, 2018),
`https://www.npr.org/2018/12/31/678860349/how-harry-potter-has-
`brought-magic-to-classrooms-for-more-than-20-years (last visited
`June 1, 2023) ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`Saoirse De Paor, Bahareh Heravi, Information literacy and fake news:
`How the field of librarianship can help combat the epidemic of
`fake news, 46 THE JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 6
`(2020), https://tinyurl.com/5hajwete .................................................................. 26
`
`J. Dilevko, L. Gottlieb, Weed to achieve: a fundamental part of the
`public library mission?, 27 LIBR. COLL. ACQ. & TECH. SERV. 73,
`94 (2003), https://www.moyak.com/papers/weeding-books-
`libraries.pdf ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`FED. COMMC’NS COMM’N, EIGHTH BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT,
`https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-
`reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report .......................................................... 26
`
`Jared Gibbs, “For Tomorrow Will Worry About Itself”: Ivan Illich’s
`Deschooling Society and the Rediscovery of Hope, 34 W. NEW
`ENG. L. REV. 381, 394 (2012) ........................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations
`(last visited June 1, 2023) ..................................................................................... 9
`
`PEGGY JOHNSON, THE FUNDAMENTALS OF COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT
`AND MANAGEMENT (4th ed. 2018) .......................................................... 14, 22, 23
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`Jeanette Larson, CREW: A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries,
`TEX. STATE LIBR. & ARCHIVES COMM’N (2012),
`https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/ld/ld/pubs/
`crew/crewmethod12.pdf ............................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement Pamphlet, AM.
`LIBR. ASS’N, https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/oif/LBOR-FTR-
`statement-pamphlet (last visited June 1, 2023) .................................................... 6
`
`Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), LIBRARY
`OF CONGRESS,
`https://www.loc.gov/resource/mjm.20_0155_0159/?sp=1&st=text..................... 7
`
`Carrie Mcbride, Ben Franklin: The Ultimate Bibliophile, NEW YORK
`PUBLIC LIBRARY BLOG (Jan. 17, 2020),
`https://www.nypl.org/blog/2020/01/17/ben-franklin-library-lover ...................... 4
`
`NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STATS., DIGEST OF EDUC. STATS., Table
`701.60, Number of public libraries (for FY 2018-19) n.1,
`https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_701.60.asp
`(last visited June 1, 2023) ..................................................................................... 5
`
`REBECCA VNUK, THE WEEDING HANDBOOK: A SHELF-BY-SHELF
`GUIDE (2d ed. 2022) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`
`The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) is an organization established by
`
`the American Library Association to foster libraries as institutions that fulfill the
`
`promise of the First Amendment; support the rights of libraries to include in their
`
`collections and make available to the public any work they may legally acquire;
`
`establish legal precedent for the freedom to read of all citizens; protect the public
`
`against efforts to suppress or censor speech; and support the right of libraries to
`
`collect and individuals to access information that reflects the diverse voices of a
`
`community so that every individual can see themselves reflected in the library’s
`
`materials and resources.
`
`The American Library Association (ALA) is an organization representing
`
`libraries and librarians throughout the United States. ALA’s membership includes
`
`over 5000 organizational members and more than 44,000 individual members.
`
`ALA’s members are in public libraries, academic libraries, special libraries, and
`
`school library media centers throughout the United States. Founded in 1876, ALA
`
`is a nonprofit, educational organization committed to the preservation of the library
`
`as a resource indispensable to the intellectual, cultural, and educational welfare of
`
`the nation. A core value of the library profession is the commitment to providing
`
`free and equal access to information in the library.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`The Texas Library Association (TLA) was established in 1902 and currently
`
`has a membership of more than 5,000 academic, public, school, and special
`
`librarians. TLA’s mission is to unite and amplify voices of the library community
`
`through advocacy, education, and intentional equity, diversity, and inclusion. The
`
`association’s core values include intellectual freedom, literacy and lifelong learning,
`
`equity of access to information, and ethical responsibility and integrity. TLA
`
`supports and advocates for Texas librarians and strives for continuous improvement
`
`toward excellence in libraries and librarianship.
`
`FTRF, ALA, and TLA believe that viewpoint censorship violates the core
`
`value of preserving intellectual freedom and thus have a strong interest in the
`
`outcome of this case.
`
`Appellants and Appellees consent to the filing of this amici curiae brief.
`
`STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
`
`Pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, FTRF,
`
`ALA, and TLA state that no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part;
`
`no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing
`
`or submitting the brief; and no person (other than the amici curiae, their members,
`
`or their counsel) contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or
`
`submitting this brief.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`At the public library in Llano, Texas, 17 books were removed from the
`
`library’s shelves, erased from the library’s catalogue, and hidden behind a desk.
`
`Patrons of the library would never know the books were there. Evidently, that was
`
`the idea.
`
`
`
`The 17 books were not removed because they were damaged or old or because
`
`the library needed more shelf space. They were removed because some members of
`
`the community said the books were “filth,” “inappropriate,” and allegedly promoted
`
`views with which those individuals disagreed. Some of the books are undoubtedly
`
`controversial; though acclaimed and award-winning, they discuss challenging topics
`
`of race, sexuality, and identity. Others are humorous children’s books about bodily
`
`functions. It was the content and perceived message of the books that got them
`
`removed.
`
`When challenged about the books’ removal, Llano County officials said this
`
`was just standard “weeding” of the library’s collection. The district court rightly
`
`rejected this explanation. Libraries are havens of “freewheeling inquiry,” where
`
`patrons can decide for themselves what to read and not to read. The purpose of
`
`“weeding” is to maintain a library collection that is “vital, relevant, and useful.” But
`
`“weeding” must never be used—as it was here—as a cynical dodge for purging
`
`library collections of controversial or disfavored books. Professional librarian
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`training, standards of conduct, and ethical canons, consistent with the First
`
`Amendment, demand far more.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Following the First Amendment is not a “burden” for librarians.
`
`In their appeal, the Llano County officials suggest that librarians should be
`
`able to target books for removal from the shelves of public libraries, based on content
`
`or perceived viewpoint, because complying with the First Amendment imposes an
`
`intolerable “burden” on librarians.1 Amici could not disagree more. Ensuring the
`
`First Amendment’s guarantee of access to a broad range of information and ideas is
`
`in the highest tradition of public libraries and librarians.
`
`A.
`
`Public libraries are citadels of American democracy.
`
`In the United States, the tradition of public libraries traces its origins to
`
`Benjamin Franklin—Founder, polymath, and “the ultimate bibliophile.”2 Franklin
`
`proposed the public library concept to “address the issue of equal opportunity” of
`
`access to information, with the hope that “our people” would be “better instructed
`
`and more intelligent than people of the same rank generally are in other countries.”3
`
`
`
`1 Appellants’ Br. at 40-41.
`2 Carrie Mcbride, Ben Franklin: The Ultimate Bibliophile, NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY BLOG
`(Jan. 17, 2020), https://www.nypl.org/blog/2020/01/17/ben-franklin-library-lover.
`3 Jared Gibbs, “For Tomorrow Will Worry About Itself”: Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society and
`the Rediscovery of Hope, 34 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 381, 394 (2012) (quoting Benjamin Franklin,
`THE COLLECTION OF BIOGRAPHY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY 62-63 (1961)).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`True to Franklin’s vision to “render the benefit from books more common,” public
`
`libraries became “a means of addressing resource scarcity.”4
`
`The modern model of the American public library evolved from Franklin’s
`
`original Library Company of Philadelphia. Also known as a “circulating” or
`
`“lending library,” a public library is “a collection of resources in a variety of
`
`formats” that is organized for “convenient … access.”5 The goal is to “stimulat[e]
`
`individual learning and advanc[e] society as a whole.”6 Over 17,000 public library
`
`outlets—including central and branch libraries and associated bookmobiles—now
`
`exist around the country.7
`
`The civic role of public libraries has evolved, too. Particularly after witnessing
`
`the early twentieth-century “practices of European fascism”—pyres of burned books
`
`kindling the rise of totalitarian regimes—American librarians embraced a “‘basic
`
`position in opposition to censorship.’”8 In 1939, the American Library Association
`
`
`
`4 Id.
`5 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASS’N: RESOURCE GUIDES, “Definition of a Library,”
`https://libguides.ala.org/library-definition (last visited June 1, 2023).
`6 Id.
`7 NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STATS., DIGEST OF EDUC. STATS., Table 701.60, Number of public
`libraries (for FY 2018-19) n.1, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_701.60.asp
`(last visited June 1, 2023).
`8 See United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194, 238-39 (2003) (Souter, J., dissenting)
`(quoting Krug & Harvey, ALA and Intellectual Freedom: A Historical Overview, in INTELLECTUAL
`FREEDOM MANUAL at xi, xv (Am. Libr. Ass’n 1974) (tracing history of American public libraries)).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`adopted its “Library Bill of Rights,”9 which begins by confirming the essential role
`
`of public libraries as “forums for information and ideas”:
`
`Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest,
`information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the
`library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin,
`background, or views of those contributing to their creation.10
`
`
`
`Public libraries are therefore not places to “transmit community values”11 or
`
`to “coerce the taste of others.”12 Rather, the public library “is a mighty resource in
`
`the free marketplace of ideas.”13 The core function of the library is to make
`
`information and ideas, even—and especially—controversial information and ideas,
`
`available to anyone with a library card.
`
`
`
`This simple notion has profound implications for American democracy. The
`
`“right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise
`
`
`9 Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement Pamphlet, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/oif/LBOR-FTR-statement-pamphlet (last visited June 1,
`2023).
`10 AM. LIBR. ASS’N LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS § 1 (emphasis added),
`https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (last visited June 1, 2023).
`11 Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 869 (1982)
`(plurality op.).
`12 Krug & Harvey, supra note 8 (quoted in ALA, 539 U.S. at 239) (Souter, J., dissenting)).
`13 Minarcini v. Strongville City Sch. Dist., 541 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1976). See also John
`Buschman, Everyday Life, Everyday Democracy in Libraries: Toward Articulating the
`Relationship, THE POLITICAL LIBRARIAN, Vol. 4,
`Issue 1, 18
`(June 2018),
`https://journals.library.wustl.edu/pollib/article/8545/galley/25378/view/
`(“Traditionally . . . libraries and librarians are there to foster informed discourse and exchange.”)
`(citation omitted).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`of his own [constitutional] rights of speech, press, and political freedom”14 and “is
`
`fundamental to our free society.”15 James Madison, architect of the First
`
`Amendment, told us why: “A popular Government, without popular information, or
`
`the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps
`
`both.”16
`
`B.
`
`Librarians are guided by well-established ethical canons and
`standards that favor no party, subject, or viewpoint.
`
` This democratizing role animates the public librarian’s training and work.
`
`Librarians are professionals who must satisfy rigorous academic requirements. In
`
`Texas, for example, a professional librarian in a public library is defined as someone
`
`who holds a specialized degree in librarianship from an ALA accredited institution.17
`
`The ALA accredits 67 programs at 63 institutions in the United States, Canada, and
`
`Puerto Rico.18 Accreditation “assures that . . . programs meet appropriate standards
`
`of quality and integrity.”19
`
`
`14 Pico, 457 U.S. at 867 (plurality op.) (emphasis in original).
`15 Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969).
`16 Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
`https://www.loc.gov/resource/mjm.20_0155_0159/?sp=1&st=text (last visited June 1, 2023)
`(quoted in Pico, 457 U.S. at 867-68 (plurality op.)).
`17 See 13 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 1.84.
`18 See Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/faq (last visited June 1, 2023).
`19 Id.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`As part of their training, librarians agree to adhere to the ALA’s Code of
`
`Ethics, which “guide[s] the work of librarians” with a focus on “the values of
`
`intellectual freedom that define the profession of librarianship.”20 Chief among
`
`these ethical obligations is the librarian’s duty not to limit access to information
`
`based on viewpoint:
`
`1. We provide the highest level of service to all library users through
`appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service
`policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous
`responses to all requests.
`
`2. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all
`efforts to censor library resources.
`
`***
`
`6. We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users,
`colleagues, or our employing institutions.
`
`7. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional
`duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair
`representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of
`access to their information resources. 21
`
`The ALA’s Library Bill of Rights sets forth the “basic policies [that] should
`
`guide [library] services.”22 Like the Code of Ethics, the Library Bill of Rights is
`
`unequivocal in its condemnation of censorship and other attempts to limit
`
`information based on viewpoint or preference:
`
`
`20 AM. LIBR. ASS’N CODE OF ETHICS, https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics (last visited June 1, 2023).
`21 Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 6-7 (emphasis added).
`22 LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, supra note 10 (preamble).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 18 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all
`points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not
`be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
`disapproval.
`
`Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
`responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.23
`
`Similarly, the ALA’s Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights explains that “‘all
`
`people’ and ‘all points of view’ should be included in library materials and
`
`information,” with “no limiting qualifiers for viewpoint, origin, or politics.”24
`
`In short, under well-established professional standards, librarians do not (and
`
`cannot) vote certain viewpoints or topics off the proverbial island. For a public
`
`library to function as “a mighty resource in the free marketplace of ideas,”25 it must
`
`afford patrons access to a broad spectrum of information and ideas. Above all, the
`
`library must not target for removal or suppression certain titles just because they
`
`may be unpopular, controversial, or outside the mainstream.
`
`C. The First Amendment requires no more—or less.
`
`These ethical canons and standards of professional conduct align with the U.S.
`
`Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, this Court, and courts around the country
`
`have recognized that public library patrons have “a First Amendment right to receive
`
`
`
`23 Id. §§ II, III.
`24 Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations (last visited June 1, 2023).
`25 Minarcini, 541 F.2d at 582.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 19 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`information.”26 Government officials therefore may not remove books from library
`
`shelves “simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by
`
`their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion,
`
`or other matters of public opinion.’”27 The removal of books from public library
`
`shelves, when “exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner,” is particularly
`
`incompatible with the First Amendment, which “does not permit the official
`
`suppression of ideas.”28
`
`Contrary to Appellants’ contention, this constitutional baseline has not been
`
`disturbed.29 Nor does the First Amendment give librarians (or other government
`
`officials) carte blanche to remove books from library shelves simply because they
`
`or members of their community find the books objectionable. Yet that is exactly the
`
`regime Appellants propose: that the First Amendment no longer applies and state
`
`officials have what courts have rejected as “absolute discretion to remove books”
`
`
`26 See Pico, 457 U.S. at 867 (plurality op.) (collecting cases); Campbell v. St. Tammany Par. Sch.
`Bd., 64 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. 1995).
`27 Campbell, 64 F.3d at 188 (quoting Pico, 457 U.S. at 872). While Pico and Campbell are public
`school library cases, their principles “have even greater force when applied to public libraries.”
`Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, 121 F. Supp. 2d 530, 548 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
`28 Pico, 457 U.S. at 870-71 (plurality op.) (emphasis in original); see also id. at 907 (Rehnquist,
`J., dissenting) (“I can cheerfully concede all of this . . . .”).
`29 See Appellants’ Br. at 19. As Appellees have explained, dicta from Chiras v. Miller, 432 F.3d
`606 (5th Cir. 2005)—which itself cites only the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in United States
`v. American Library Association—does not concern removal of books from public libraries and is
`therefore inapplicable. See Appellees’ Br. at 38-39. Moreover, under this Court’s rule of
`orderliness, Chiras cannot overrule the earlier panel opinion in Campbell. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Nat’l
`Drug Intel. Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 117-1 Page: 20 Date Filed: 06/02/2023
`
`
`
`from library shelves.30 The Court should eschew Appellants’ proposed sea-change
`
`in First Amendment law.
`
`Finally, established First Amendment principles are consistent with what
`
`librarians are already required to do in the Code of Ethics and Library Bill of
`
`Rights.31 In Appellants’ view, complying with such requirements is too great a
`
`“burden” on librarians.32 But as nearly a century of public library practice shows,
`
`Appellants are incorrect. Indeed, “the transcendent imperatives of the First
`
`Amendment”33 guide the work librarians do every day.
`
`II.
`
`“Weeding” library collections is an objective process, not the targeted
`removal of disfavored or controversial books.
`
`This constitutional baseline and related professional librarian standards
`
`inform the practice at issue here—the periodic “weeding” of library collections.
`
`Appellants’ central theory is that the removal of the 17 books from the Llano Public
`
`Library was simply the product of a standard “weeding” process th