Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`No. 23-50224
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Fifth Circuit
`
`LEILA GREEN LITTLE; JEANNE PURYEAR; KATHY KENNEDY; RE-
`BECCA JONES; RICHARD DAY; CYNTHIA WARING; 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 ca-
`pacity as Llano County Commissioner; MIKE SANDOVAL, in his
`official capacity as Llano County Commissioner; LINDA
`RASCHKE, in her official capacity as Llano County Commis-
`sioner; AMBER MILUM, in her official capacity as Llano County
`Library System Director; BONNIE WALLACE, in her official ca-
`pacity 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; GAY BASKIN, in her official ca-
`pacity as Llano County Library Board Member,
`
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas
`No. 1:22-cv-424-RP
`
`BRIEF OF STATES OF FLORIDA, TEXAS, ALASKA,
`ARKANSAS, IDAHO, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS,
`LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA,
`NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, SOUTH
`CAROLINA, UTAH, AND WEST VIRGINIA AS AMICI
`CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`KEN PAXTON
` Attorney General of Texas
`BRENT WEBSTER
` First Assistant Attorney General
`AARON L. NIELSON
` Solicitor General
`LANORA C. PETTIT
` Principal Deputy Solicitor General
`
`Texas Attorney General’s Office
`P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
`Austin, TX 78711-2548
`(512) 936-1700
`aaron.nielson@oag.texas.gov
`
`August 9, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`ASHLEY MOODY
` Attorney General of Florida
`HENRY C. WHITAKER
` Solicitor General
`NATHAN A. FORRESTER
` Senior Deputy Solicitor General
`BRIDGET K. O’HICKEY
` Assistant Solicitor General
`
`Florida Attorney General’s Office
`PL-01, The Capitol
`Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
`(850) 414-3300
`henry.whitaker@myfloridalegal.com
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... ii
`
`INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ....................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`The selection and removal of public-library materials are
`government speech. .......................................................................... 3
`
`II. The district court’s arguments to the contrary are wrong. ........... 11
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 21
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
`557 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 16
`Bd. of Educ. v. Pico,
`457 U.S. 853 (1982) ........................................................ 3, 13, 15, 16, 17
`Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth,
`529 U.S. 217 (2000) ................................................................................ 5
`Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board,
`64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995) ...................................................... 12, 13, 16
`Chiras v. Miller,
`432 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2005) .......................................................... 14, 15
`Doe ex rel. Doe v. Governor of N.J.,
`783 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 14
`Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n,
`544 U.S. 550 (2005) ................................................................ 4, 5, 10, 13
`Little v. Llano Cnty.,
`103 F.4th 1140 (5th Cir. 2024) .............................................................. 9
`Marks v. United States,
`430 U.S. 188 (1977) .............................................................................. 15
`Matal v. Tam,
`582 U.S. 218 (2017) ...................................................................... 2, 4, 10
`Murthy v. Missouri,
`144 S. Ct. 1972 (2024) .......................................................................... 13
`Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,
`524 U.S. 569 (1998) ................................................................................ 4
`Parnell v. Sch. Bd. of Lake Cnty.,
`No. 4:23-cv-414, 2024 WL 2703762 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2024) .............. 2
`People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Gittens,
`414 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 3
`Pleasant Grove City v. Summum,
`555 U.S. 460 (2009) ............................................ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14
`Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va.,
`515 U.S. 819 (1995) ................................................................................ 4
`Shurtleff v. City of Boston,
`596 U.S. 243 (2022) .............................................................. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`Stromberg v. California,
`283 U.S. 359 (1931) ................................................................................ 5
`United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc. (ALA),
`539 U.S. 194 (2003) ...................................................... 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14
`Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,
`576 U.S. 200 (2015) ............................................................ 4, 5, 7, 10, 14
`
`Statutes
`
`24 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. § 9318(f) ....................................................... 8
`29 R.I. Gen. Laws § 29-4-6 ........................................................................ 8
`29 R.I. Gen. Laws § 29-4-7 ........................................................................ 8
`75 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/7 .............................................................................. 8
`Ala. Code § 11-90-3(a) ............................................................................... 8
`Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-901 ............................................................................ 8
`Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-909.A. ....................................................................... 8
`Ark. Code § 13-2-401(a) ............................................................................. 8
`Cal. Educ. Code § 19100 ............................................................................ 8
`Cal. Educ. Code § 19146 ............................................................................ 8
`Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-90-122(2) .................................................................. 8
`Conn. Gen. Stat. § 11-21 ........................................................................... 8
`Del. Code tit. 9, § 801 ................................................................................ 8
`Ga. Code § 20-5-23 ..................................................................................... 8
`Ga. Code § 20-5-43 ..................................................................................... 8
`Idaho Code § 33-2607 ................................................................................ 8
`Idaho Code § 33-2608 ................................................................................ 8
`Idaho Code § 33-2616 ................................................................................ 8
`Ind. Code § 36-12-3-3 ................................................................................. 8
`Ind. Code § 36-12-6-3 ................................................................................. 8
`Iowa Code § 336.8 ...................................................................................... 8
`Kan. Stat. § 12-1225 .................................................................................. 8
`Ky. Rev. Stat. § 173.520(1) ........................................................................ 8
`La. Stat. § 25:215(A) .................................................................................. 8
`La. Stat. § 25:234 ....................................................................................... 8
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 78, § 11 .................................................................... 8
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 78, § 15 .................................................................... 8
`Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 27, § 101 ....................................................................... 8
`Mich. Comp. Laws § 397.155..................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`Mich. Comp. Laws § 397.182..................................................................... 8
`Mich. Comp. Laws § 397.205..................................................................... 8
`Minn. Stat. § 134.11 .................................................................................. 8
`Miss. Code § 39-3-17(1) ............................................................................. 8
`Miss. Code § 39-3-17(2) ............................................................................. 8
`Mo. Stat. § 182.200 .................................................................................... 8
`Mont. Code § 22-1-309 ............................................................................... 8
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-263 ....................................................................... 8
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-266 ....................................................................... 8
`N.D. Cent. Code § 40-38-04 ....................................................................... 8
`N.H. Rev. Stat. § 202-A:6 .......................................................................... 8
`N.H.Rev. Stat. § 202-A:11 ......................................................................... 8
`N.J. Stat. § 40:54-12 .................................................................................. 8
`N.M. Stat. § 3-18-14 .................................................................................. 8
`Neb. Rev. Stat. § 51-207 ............................................................................ 8
`Neb. Rev. Stat. § 51-211(1) ........................................................................ 8
`Neb. Rev. Stat. § 51-211(2) ........................................................................ 8
`Nev. Rev. Stat.§ 379.025 ........................................................................... 8
`Ohio Rev. Code § 3375.40(A) ..................................................................... 8
`Ohio Rev. Code § 3375.40(B) ..................................................................... 8
`Okla. Stat. tit. 11, § 31-104 ....................................................................... 8
`Okla. Stat. tit. 11, § 31-105 ....................................................................... 8
`Or. Rev. Stat. § 357.410 ............................................................................ 8
`Or. Rev. Stat. § 357.490 ............................................................................ 8
`S.C. Code § 4-9-36(2) ................................................................................. 8
`S.C. Code § 4-9-36(3) ................................................................................. 8
`S.D. Codified Laws § 14-2-40(1) ................................................................ 8
`S.D. Codified Laws § 14-2-42(4) ................................................................ 8
`Tenn. Code § 10-3-104 ............................................................................... 8
`Tex. Local Gov. Code § 323.005(c) ............................................................. 8
`Utah Code § 9-7-404 .................................................................................. 8
`Utah Code § 9-7-504 .................................................................................. 8
`Va. Code § 42.1-35 ..................................................................................... 8
`Vt. Stat. tit. 22, § 105 ................................................................................ 8
`Vt. Stat. tit. 22, § 143 ................................................................................ 8
`W. Va. Code § 10-1-6(c) ............................................................................. 8
`Wash. Rev. Code § 27.12.210(9) ................................................................ 8
`Wis. Stat. § 43.58(1) .................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`Wyo. Stat. § 18-7-103(a) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`A History of US Public Libraries: First Public Libraries, Digital Public
`Library of America, bit.ly/3YyEreI (last visited Aug. 6, 2024) ........... 11
`Francis K.W. Drury, Book Selection (1930),
` bit.ly/3WyPFO0 .............................................................................. 11, 12
`U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Public Libraries in the United States of
`America: Their History, Condition, and Management (1876),
`bit.ly/4dcouzw ...................................................................................... 11
`W. Katz, Collection Development: The Selection of Materials for
`Libraries (1980) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`
`This case presents the question whether the First Amendment re-
`
`stricts a county’s decision to remove such books from its public library as
`
`Larry the Farting Leprechaun and Gary the Goose and His Gas on the
`
`Loose:
`
`It is incontestable that patrons of a public library have no First
`
`
`
`
`
`Amendment right to compel a librarian to purchase any particular book.
`
`Nevertheless, the district court ruled that patrons have the right to pre-
`
`vent a librarian from removing particular books, reasoning that the First
`
`Amendment requires public libraries to demonstrate that any “content-
`
`based” decisions regarding what books it offers are “narrowly tailored to
`
`serve a compelling interest”—even decisions concerning “children’s
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`picture books . . .depict[ing] bodily functions in a humorous . . . cartoon
`
`format.” ROA.3528, ROA.3508. The court was wrong.
`
`The county’s decisions over which books to offer its patrons in its
`
`public libraries, at its own expense, are its own speech. Because “[w]hen
`
`a government entity embarks on a course of action, it necessarily takes a
`
`particular viewpoint and rejects others,” the government does not violate
`
`anyone’s free-speech rights merely by speaking—no matter what it
`
`chooses to say or not to say. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 234 (2017).
`
`Amici States of Florida, Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana,
`
`Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
`
`North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia have an
`
`interest in preventing federal courts from second-guessing state and local
`
`governments’ decisions about which materials to include in their public
`
`libraries—an issue that regrettably is the subject of considerable litiga-
`
`tion in other federal courts. See, e.g., GLBT Youth in Iowa Sch. Task
`
`Force v. Reynolds, No. 24-1075 (8th Cir. 2024); Parnell v. Sch. Bd. of Lake
`
`Cnty., No. 4:23-cv-414, 2024 WL 2703762, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2024).
`
`The Court should reject the district court’s decision to countermand the
`
`county’s discretion in managing the content of its public libraries, thereby
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`turning a matter historically left to local democratic process into a federal
`
`issue settled by lawyers and judges in courtrooms far removed from the
`
`community the relevant library was created to serve.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should reverse because the selection and the removal of
`
`public-library materials are government speech that the Free Speech
`
`Clause of the First Amendment does not address.
`
`I.
`
`The selection and removal of public-library materials are
`government speech.
`
`The district court held that plaintiffs-appellees were likely to suc-
`
`ceed on their viewpoint- and content-based discrimination claims because
`
`“[a]lthough libraries are afforded great discretion for their selection and
`
`acquisition decisions, the First Amendment prohibits the removal of
`
`books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination.”
`
`ROA.3523 (citing Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871 (1982) (plurality
`
`opinion)). But the selection of public-library materials is government
`
`speech, see People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Gittens,
`
`414 F.3d 23, 28 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and “[t]he Free Speech Clause . . . does
`
`not regulate government speech,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`U.S. 460, 467 (2009) (citing Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n, 544
`
`U.S. 550, 553 (2005)).
`
`A. The government may “regulate the content of . . . its own mes-
`
`sage,” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833
`
`(1995), including when it speaks through the discretionary selection,
`
`commission, purchase, or compilation of materials for presentation to the
`
`public. See Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 586
`
`(1998) (government has discretion to make content-based judgments
`
`when selecting art for funding); Summum, 555 U.S. at 470–73.
`
`This principle extends to presentation of viewpoint as well. “When
`
`the government encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum
`
`for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating
`
`against speakers based on their viewpoint.” Shurtleff v. City of Boston,
`
`596 U.S. 243, 247 (2022) (citing Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 828–30). “But
`
`when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not
`
`demand airtime for all views.” Id. at 247–48. “After all, the government
`
`must be able to ‘promote a program’ or ‘espouse a policy’ in order to func-
`
`tion.” Id. at 248 (quoting Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Vet-
`
`erans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 208 (2015)); accord Matal, 582 U.S. at 234
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`(discussing the limits of the doctrine but recognizing that “a requirement
`
`of viewpoint-neutrality on government speech would be paralyzing”).
`
`That principle recognizes that “it is the democratic electoral process
`
`that first and foremost provides a check on government speech.” Walker,
`
`576 U.S. at 207 (citing Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth,
`
`529 U.S. 217, 235 (2000)). Indeed, much of the theory behind the Free
`
`Speech Clause is that by “produc[ing] informed opinions among members
`
`of the public,” it will produce an electorate “able to influence the choices
`
`of a government that, through words and deeds, will reflect its electoral
`
`mandate.” Id. (citing Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 (1931)).
`
`“If the citizenry objects,” they can vote the offending official out of office,
`
`and “newly elected officials later could espouse some different or contrary
`
`position.” Southworth, 529 U.S. at 235; accord, e.g., Johanns, 544 U.S. at
`
`553 (contrasting constitutional status of private and government speech).
`
`This is no less true for the selection and removal of library materials than
`
`for any other kind of government speech.
`
`In Summum, for example, the Supreme Court held that the selec-
`
`tion of monuments for a public park was government speech, even when
`
`the monuments were funded or donated by private parties. 555 U.S. at
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`470–73. “Government decisionmakers select[ed] the monuments that
`
`portray[ed] what they view[ed] as appropriate for the place in question,
`
`taking into account such content-based factors as esthetics, history, and
`
`local culture.” Id. at 472. Accordingly, the “decision to accept certain pri-
`
`vately donated monuments while rejecting” others was “government
`
`speech.” Id. at 481. Critically, the government was not required to “main-
`
`tain viewpoint neutrality” in making that decision. Id. at 479. And be-
`
`cause these same “principles . . . also apply to a public library’s exercise
`
`of judgment in selecting the material it provides to its patrons,” United
`
`States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc. (ALA), 539 U.S. 194, 205 (2003) (plurality
`
`opinion), collection decisions are also government speech.
`
`B. The three-factor test that the Supreme Court has established for
`
`determining whether a particular expressive activity constitutes govern-
`
`ment speech confirms that library-selection decisions are indeed govern-
`
`ment speech. Those factors are “the history of the expression at issue; the
`
`public’s likely perception as to who . . . is speaking; and the extent to
`
`which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression.”
`
`Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 252. All three compel the conclusion that the gov-
`
`ernment is speaking when it selects or removes public-library books.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`First, the government “actively control[s]” the selection and re-
`
`moval of library books. Id. at 256. In Summum, the Supreme Court ex-
`
`plained that the City “‘effectively controlled’ the messages sent by the
`
`monuments in the Park” because it exercised “‘final approval authority’
`
`over their selection.” 555 U.S. at 473. Specifically, it “selected th[e] mon-
`
`uments that it want[ed] to display for the purpose of presenting the im-
`
`age of the City that it wish[ed] to project,” took “ownership” of the monu-
`
`ments, and “set forth the criteria it [would] use in making future selec-
`
`tions.” Id. It did not matter that the City did “not design[] or buil[d]” the
`
`monuments—it was enough that the City accepted and displayed them.
`
`Id. at 472–73; see also, e.g., Walker, 576 U.S. at 212 (“including the de-
`
`signs that Texas adopts on the basis of proposals made by private indi-
`
`viduals and organizations” among the license plates deemed government
`
`speech).
`
`Public libraries, like the Llano County Library, are no different.
`
`When the government selects library materials to make available in a
`
`public library, it conveys that, in its view, those materials are of the “req-
`
`uisite and appropriate quality” and will “be of the greatest direct benefit
`
`or interest to the community.” ALA, 539 U.S. at 204 (plurality opinion)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`(quotations omitted). The government, through public-library staff, effec-
`
`tively controls this message because it both funds and exercises final ap-
`
`proval authority over book selection. See, e.g., Tex. Local Gov. Code
`
`§ 323.005(c) (stating that the county librarian “shall determine which
`
`books and library equipment will be purchased”). Many states have sim-
`
`ilar statutory schemes, empowering a city or county librarian or library
`
`board to establish and maintain a public library.1
`
`Second, “the public would tend to view the [collection of books se-
`
`lected for a county library] as the government’s” speech. Shurtleff, 596
`
`U.S. at 255. Again, in Summum, the Court remarked that “property own-
`
`ers” do “not common[ly] . . . open up their property for the installation of
`
`
`
`1 Ala. Code § 11-90-3(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-901, 11-909.A.; Ark. Code § 13-
`2-401(a); Cal. Educ. Code §§ 19100, 19146; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-90-122(2); Conn. Gen.
`Stat. § 11-21; Del. Code tit. 9, § 801; Ga. Code §§ 20-5-23, 20-5-43; Idaho Code §§ 33-
`2607, 33-2608, 33-2616; 75 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/7; Ind. Code §§ 36-12-3-3, 36-12-6-3;
`Iowa Code § 336.8; Kan. Stat. § 12-1225; Ky. Rev. Stat. § 173.520(1); La. Stat.
`§§ 25:215(A), 25:234; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 27, § 101; Md. Code, Educ. § 23-405(c), (d);
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 78, §§ 11, 15; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 397.155, 397.182, 397.205;
`Minn. Stat. § 134.11; Miss. Code § 39-3-17(1), (2); Mo. Stat. § 182.200; Mont. Code
`§ 22-1-309; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 51-207, 51-211(1), (2); Nev. Rev. Stat.§ 379.025; N.H.
`Rev. Stat. §§ 202-A:6, 202-A:11; N.J. Stat. § 40:54-12; N.M. Stat. § 3-18-14; N.C. Gen.
`Stat. §§ 153A-263, 153A‑266; N.D. Cent. Code § 40-38-04; Ohio Rev. Code
`§ 3375.40(A), (B); Okla. Stat. tit. 11, §§ 31-104, 31-105; Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 357.410,
`357.490; 24 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. § 9318(f); 29 R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 29-4-6, 29-4-7;
`S.C. Code § 4-9-36(2), (3); S.D. Codified Laws §§ 14-2-40(1), 14-2-42(4); Tenn. Code
`§ 10-3-104; Utah Code §§ 9-7-404, 9-7-504; Vt. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 105, 143; Va. Code
`§ 42.1-35; Wash. Rev. Code § 27.12.210(9); W. Va. Code § 10-1-6(c); Wis. Stat.
`§ 43.58(1); Wyo. Stat. § 18-7-103(a).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`permanent monuments that convey a message with which they do not
`
`wish to be associated.” 555 U.S. at 471. And for that reason, “persons who
`
`observe [those] monuments routinely—and reasonably—interpret them
`
`as conveying some message on the property owner’s behalf.” Id.
`
`So too here. People know that publicly employed librarians, not pa-
`
`trons, select library materials for a purpose. That purpose is not that the
`
`government necessarily endorses every word on every page of every book
`
`in its collection, but that the materials it makes available are, in its view,
`
`of the “requisite and appropriate quality” and will “be of the greatest di-
`
`rect benefit or interest to the community.” ALA, 539 U.S. at 204 (plurality
`
`opinion) (quotations omitted); see also id. (“The librarian’s responsibility
`
`. . . is to separate out the gold from the garbage, not to preserve every-
`
`thing.” (quoting W. Katz, Collection Development: The Selection of Mate-
`
`rials for Libraries 6 (1980))).
`
`Library books may lack the permanence of the stone monuments in
`
`Summum, but as the panel recognized, they can be held for many years
`
`until they have been “worn out beyond mending or rebinding” or “[s]uper-
`
`seded by a new edition or a better source.” Little v. Llano Cnty., 103 F.4th
`
`1140, 1144 (5th Cir. 2024) (quotations omitted). The Court has found far
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`more transitory communications to be government speech, where the
`
`“public would tend to view the speech . . . as the government’s.” Shurtleff,
`
`596 U.S. at 255; cf. Walker, 576 U.S. at 217 (explaining that “Texas vehi-
`
`cle owners must pay annual fees in order to display specialty license
`
`plates”); Johanns, 544 U.S. at 555, 560 (explaining that beef advertise-
`
`ments, “including print and television messages,” were government
`
`speech); accord Matal, 582 U.S. at 234–35 (acknowledging that “posters
`
`to promote the war effort” during World War II were “essential” govern-
`
`ment speech). For the reasons just discussed, the “presence and position”
`
`of these books in a county library—a prominent building in many smaller
`
`communities—“convey[s] important messages about government” and its
`
`views on their social and literary value. Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 254.
`
`Third and finally, “the history of the expression at issue,” id. at 252,
`
`supports that the selection and removal of public-library books are gov-
`
`ernment speech. This factor favored the city in Summum because
`
`“[g]overnments have long used monuments to speak to the public.” 555
`
`U.S. at 470. The same is true of library books. Governments have long
`
`exercised control over the selection of public-library materials, conveying
`
`the message that the chosen materials are of the “requisite and
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`appropriate quality” and will most benefit and interest the community.
`
`ALA, 539 U.S. at 203–04 (plurality opinion). “Public libraries,” meaning
`
`those that are board-governed and tax-funded, “began spreading in ear-
`
`nest in American towns and cities after the Civil War.” A History of US
`
`Public Libraries: First Public Libraries, Digital Public Library of Amer-
`
`ica, bit.ly/3YyEreI (last visited Aug. 6, 2024). And even 19th and early
`
`20th century public-library collections were to be “carefully selected by
`
`the directors, or their library committees.” U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Pub-
`
`lic Libraries in the United States of America: Their History, Condition,
`
`and Management 479 (1876), bit.ly/4dcouzw; see also Francis K.W.
`
`Drury, Book Selection 292 (1930), bit.ly/3WyPFO0 (explaining that “[a]
`
`public library is generally administered by a board of trustees, created as
`
`a result of a library law of the state,” which has “the responsibility . . .
`
`[to] establish[], maint[ain], and manage[] . . . the library”).
`
`II. The district court’s arguments to the contrary are wrong.
`
`None of the reasons the district court advanced for concluding the
`
`contrary persuade.
`
`A. The district court rejected the government-speech argument, and
`
`distinguished many of the precedents above, on the ground that they
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`“mostly involve the initial selection[] not removal of materials.”
`
`ROA.3520. But there is no reason to treat initial-selection decisions dif-
`
`ferently from later-removal decisions. The selection of some books neces-
`
`sarily excludes others. See Francis K.W. Drury, Book Selection 293
`
`(1930), bit.ly/3WyPFO0 (“Physical and financial limitations prohibiting
`
`the purchase of everything, choice must be made of the items which are
`
`most suitable.”). And the timing of when a book is excluded—at the outset
`
`or sometime later—should not alter the analysis of whether its exclusion
`
`is constitutionally permissible. Selection and removal decisions are based
`
`on the same considerations and bear the same three indicators of govern-
`
`ment speech: government control, public perception, and historical prac-
`
`tice.
`
`B. The district court supported its distinction between book selec-
`
`tion and removal decisions with Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School
`
`Board, 64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995). There, the Court held that the First
`
`Amendment prohibits school officials from “remov[ing] books from school
`
`library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those
`
`books.” 64 F.3d at 188 (quotation omitted).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 217-1 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
`
`In doing so, the Court took “guidance,” id. at 189, from a right-to-
`
`receive-information theory that garnered only three votes in Board of Ed-
`
`ucation v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 863–69 (1982) (Part II.A.1 of plurality opin-
`
`ion; Brennan, J., joined by Marshall and Stevens, JJ.); id. at 878–79
`
`(Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment; not
`
`joining Part II.A.1); id. at 883–84 (White, J., concurring in judgment
`
`only). But Campbell was decided in 1995 before the Supreme Court’s
`
`guidance in ALA, 539 U.S. at 205 (plurality opinion), explaining that pub-
`
`lic-library staff enjoy broad discretion in making collection decisions.
`
`Campbell was also decided about ten years before the Court formally rec-
`
`ognized the government-speech doctrine in Johanns v. Livestock Market-
`
`ing Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550 (2005). And it was decided nearly thirty years
`
`before the Court responded to “startlingly broad” assertions of the right
`
`to hear by clarifying that such a theory applies “only where the listener
`
`has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker.” Murthy v. Missouri,
`
`144 S. Ct. 1972, 1996 (2024).
`
`For the reasons explained above, Supreme Court precedent now
`
`makes clear that the selection of public-library mate