Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`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, RHONDA 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 District of Texas, Austin Division
`1:22-cv-00424-RP
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
` OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
`(Counsel Listed Inside Cover)
`
`
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`Katherine P. Chiarello
`(TX Bar No. 24006994)
`Ryan A. Botkin
`(TX Bar No. 00793366)
`María Amelia Calaf
`(TX Bar No. 24081915)
`Botkin Chiarello Calaf PLLC
`1209 Nueces Street
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: 512-615-2341
`Fax: 737-289-4695
`ryan@bccaustin.com
`katherine@bccaustin.com
`mac@bccaustin.com
`
`
`Matthew Borden
`(CA Bar No. 214323)
`J. Noah Hagey
`(CA Bar No. 262331)
`Marissa R. Benavides
`(NY Bar No. 5796891)
`Kory James DeClark
`(CA Bar No. 310571)
`BraunHagey & Borden LLP
`747 Front Street, 4th Floor
`Tel: 415-599-0210
`Fax: 415-276-1808
`borden@braunhagey.com
`hagey@braunhagey.com
`benavides@braunhagey.com
`declark@braunhagey.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan F. Mitchell
`Texas Bar No. 24075463
`Mitchell Law PLLC
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 686-3940 (phone)
`(512) 686-3941 (fax)
`jonathan@mitchell.law
`
`Dwain K. Rogers
`Texas Bar No. 00788311
`County Attorney
`
`Matthew L. Rienstra
`Texas Bar No. 16908020
`First Assistant County Attorney
`Llano County Attorney’s Office
`Llano County Courthouse
`801 Ford Street
`Llano, Texas 78643
`(325) 247-7733
`dwain.rogers@co.llano.tx.us
`matt.rienstra@co.llano.tx.us
`
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
`
`The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons
`
`and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in
`
`the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of
`
`this court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`Leila Green Little
`Jeanne Puryear
`Kathy Kennedy
`Rebecca Jones
`Richard Day
`Cynthia Waring
`Diane Moster
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Counsel
`Katherine P. Chiarello
`Ryan A. Botkin
`María Amelia Calaf
`Botkin Chiarello Calaf PLLC
`
`Matthew Borden
`J. Noah Hagey
`Marissa R. Benavides
`Kory James DeClark
`BraunHagey & Borden LLP
`
`Defendants-Appellants
`Llano County
`Ron Cunningham
`Jerry Don Moss
`Peter Jones
`Mike Sandoval
`Linda Raschke
`Amber Milum
`Bonnie Wallace
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`Rochelle Wells
`Rhonda Schneider
`Gay Baskin
`
`Defendants-Appellants’ Counsel
`Jonathan F. Mitchell
`Mitchell Law PLLC
`
`Dwain K. Rogers
`Matthew L. Rienstra
`Llano County Attorney’s Office
`
`
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Oral argument before the en banc Court is set for September 24, 2024.
`
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ........................................................ (cid:44)
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................ III
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ IV
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. VII
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Summary of Facts and Evidence .......................................................... 4
`1.
`Defendants Censored Books with Ideas They Disliked ............ 4
`2.
`Defendants Offered a Pretextual Explanation for Censoring
`the Banned Books ...................................................................... 6
`The Factual Record Overwhelmingly Supports the District
`Court’s Decision under the Applicable Standard of Review(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:27)
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural History .............................................................................. 12
`1.
`The District Court Decision ..................................................... 12
`2.
`The Panel Decision .................................................................. 13
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 15
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 17
`I.
`THE GOVERNMENT SPEECH DOCTRINE IS NOT A BASIS FOR
`REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT ..................................................... 17
`A.
`Defendants Waived the Government Speech Argument ................... 17
`B.
`Censoring Public Library Books Is Not Government Speech ........... 19
`1.
`Shurtleff Forecloses Any Argument that Censoring Books
`at a Public Library Is Government Speech .............................. 21
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`The Government Has Not Historically Spoken by
`Censoring Books at Public Libraries ............................. 22
`The Public Would Not Perceive Surreptitious Book
`Removal in Contravention of the Library’s Written
`Standards to Be Government Speech ............................ 26
`(1) Nobody Understands the Government to Be
`Endorsing the Message of Every Book in
`the Library ........................................................... 26
`(2) The Public Cannot Form Any Belief from
`Activities the Government Conceals ................... 28
`(3) Amici’s Arguments About Political
`Checks Are Incorrect ........................................... 28
`Llano County Officials Do Not Actively Control
`Any Purported Message from Llano County Libraries . 30
`(1) Amici’s Generalized Arguments Do Not
`Account for Llano County’s History and Are
`Foreclosed by Shurtleff ........................................ 31
`(2) That the Government Pays for Library Books
`Does Not Give It the Right to Engage in
`Viewpoint Discrimination ................................... 32
`Defendants’ Moody Argument Is Incorrect Because Moody
`Was Not a Government Speech Case and Has Nothing to
`Do with This Case .................................................................... 37
`DEFENDANTS’ CRITICISMS OF THIS COURT’S DECISION IN
`CAMPBELL ARE INCORRECT ................................................................. 38
`A.
`Campbell is Simple, Clear, and Workable ......................................... 39
`B.
`Pico Requires First Amendment Limitations on Library
`Book Censorship and Campbell Provides the Narrowest
`Possible Limitation ............................................................................. 42
`Campbell is Not Distinguishable ....................................................... 44
`
`C.
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`The Right to Receive Information Extends to Public Libraries ......... 47
`D.
`III. DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT THE DISTRICT
`COURT’S FACTUAL FINDINGS WERE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS ..... 51
`IV. DEFENDANTS DID NOT MOOT THIS CASE BY HIDING THE
`BANNED BOOKS BEHIND A DESK ....................................................... 52
`V. DEFENDANTS REMAINING CONCERNS ARE MERITLESS .............. 56
`A.
`The Injunction Is Not Overbroad ....................................................... 56
`B.
`Plaintiffs Made a “Clear Showing” on All Four Prongs of the
`Preliminary-Injunction Inquiry .......................................................... 56
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 57
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 59
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.,
`470 U.S. 564 (1985) ................................................................................................ 8
`Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes,
`523 U.S. 666 (1998) ....................................................................................... 33, 34
`Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico,
`457 U.S. 853 (1982) ...................................................................................... passim
`Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board,
`64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................... passim
`Citizens United v. Fed. Election Com’n,
`558 U.S. 310 (2010) .............................................................................................. 19
`Elrod v. Burns,
`427 U.S. 347 (1976) ....................................................................................... 54, 56
`Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre,
`601 U.S. 234 (2024) .............................................................................................. 53
`Frew v. Young,
`No. 21-40028, 2022 WL 135126 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2022) ................................... 18
`Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs. (TOC), Inc.,
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) .............................................................................................. 54
`GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force v. Reynolds,
`No. 24-1075, 2024 WL 3736785 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) ............................ passim
`Hopwood v. State of Texas,
`236 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 8, 51
`Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown,
`958 F.2d 1242 (3d Cir. 1992) .................................................................. 22, 49, 50
`Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. of U. S.,
`381 U.S. 301 (1965) .............................................................................................. 49
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez,
`531 U.S. 533 (2001) .............................................................................................. 29
`Martin v. City of Struthers,
`319 U.S. 141 (1943) ........................................................................... 22, 24, 29, 48
`Matal v. Tam,
`582 U.S. 218 (2017) ...................................................................................... passim
`McGee v. Estell,
`722 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 18
`MDK Sociedad De Responsabilidad Limitada v. Proplant Inc.,
`25 F.4th 360 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................. 17
`Moody v. NetChoice, LLC,
`144 S. Ct. 2383 (2024) ................................................................................... 20, 37
`Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle,
`429 U.S. 274 (1977) .............................................................................................. 41
`National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,
`524 U.S. 569 (1998) ................................................................................. 30, 33, 34
`Nat’l Rifle Assoc. of Am. v. Vullo,
`602 U.S. 175 (2024) ....................................................................................... 28, 29
`Neinast v. Bd. of Trustees of Columbus Metro. Libr.,
`346 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 50
`NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton,
`49 F.4th 439 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................. 44
`Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum,
`555 U.S. 460 (2009) ....................................................................................... 24, 25
`Red Lion Broad. Co. v. F.C.C.,
`395 U.S. 367 (1969) .............................................................................................. 49
`Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington,
`461 U.S. 540 (1983) .............................................................................................. 34
`Robinson v. Hunt Cnty., Texas,
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`921 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 56
`Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia,
`515 U.S. 819 (1995) ........................................................................... 24, 35, 36, 55
`Shurtleff v. Boston,
`596 U.S. 243 (2022) ...................................................................................... passim
`Spell v. Edwards,
`962 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 54
`Stanley v. Georgia,
`394 U.S. 557 (1969) .............................................................................................. 47
`Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Gov’t,
`17 F.4th 563 (5th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................. 17
`Thomas v. Collins,
`323 U.S. 516 (1945) .............................................................................................. 48
`United States v. American Library Association, Inc.,
`539 U.S. 194 (2003) ...................................................................................... passim
`United States v. Ogle,
`415 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 18
`Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski,
`141 S. Ct. 792 (2021) ............................................................................................ 54
`Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp.,
`429 U.S. 252 (1977) .............................................................................................. 41
`Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 748 (1976) .............................................................................................. 49
`Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,
`576 U.S. 200 (2015) .............................................................................................. 27
`Wallace v. Jaffree,
`472 U.S. 38 (1985) ........................................................................................... 3, 19
`West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,
`319 U.S. 624 (1943) ................................................................................... 3, 19, 38
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`Whitney v. California,
`274 U.S. 357 (1927) .............................................................................................. 29
`Widmar v. Vincent,
`454 U.S. 263 (1981) ....................................................................................... 35, 36
`
`
`
`
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` x
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants ask this Court to eliminate any First Amendment check on the
`
`government’s power to suppress ideas in public library books based on a
`
`“government speech” argument they did not raise on appeal or in their petition for
`
`rehearing en banc. This new rule would recast government censorship as protected
`
`affirmative speech, expand the government’s power to extinguish controversial
`
`ideas, and overturn the common-sense precedent this Court established in
`
`Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995), which
`
`libraries have relied on to constitutionally curate their collections for almost three
`
`decades.
`
`The Supreme Court has cautioned that courts must “exercise great caution
`
`before extending our government-speech precedents.” Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218,
`
`235 (2017). American public libraries have traditionally served as epicenters for
`
`intellectual exploration. Over 600 million patrons visit public libraries annually.
`
`Defendants’ proposed rule would turn these institutions into silos of partisanship.
`
`Politicians in Berkeley, California would be free to ban books authored by Adam
`
`Smith or Ayn Rand; politicians in Provost, Utah would be free to ban books
`
`antagonistic to Mormonism; and politicians in Llano, Texas would be free to ban
`
`books addressing bodily functions, race, and sexuality.
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`The only circuit court to consider this issue rejected Defendants’ argument
`
`that censoring library books is protected government speech. See GLBT Youth in
`
`Iowa Schools Task Force v. Reynolds, No. 24-1075, 2024 WL 3736785 (8th Cir.
`
`Aug. 9, 2024). This Court should do the same. Applying the Supreme Court’s
`
`controlling test in Shurtleff v. Boston, 596 U.S. 243, 252 (2022), the Court should
`
`find that Defendants did not engage in government speech because: (1) Llano
`
`County has not historically censored books based on viewpoint, (2) given the
`
`variety of conflicting views represented in the books, the public does not perceive
`
`the government to be “speaking,” and (3) Llano County, the State of Texas, and
`
`libraries have not exercised viewpoint control over every public library book. To
`
`the contrary, the Llano County Library System’s constitution, like virtually every
`
`library charter around the nation, states: “[t]he Library does not promulgate
`
`particular beliefs or views, nor is the selection of any given media equivalent to
`
`endorsement of the viewpoint of the author expressed therein.” ROA.1496.
`
`Defendants and the government amici argue that, by removing books,
`
`libraries send a government message that the books that remain are of a “requisite
`
`and appropriate quality.” But the Supreme Court rejected this approach as opening
`
`the door to censorship. See Matal, 582 U.S. at 239-48 (denying government
`
`argument that issuance of trademarks constituted “speech” related to the marks’
`
`non-offensive quality). Were Defendants’ theory correct, the government could
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`claim that it was speaking, for example, by offering non-profit status only to
`
`religious groups of “requisite and appropriate quality”—exactly what the First
`
`Amendment was designed to prevent. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52
`
`(1985) (First Amendment created to prevent preferencing one faith over another);
`
`West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (“If there is
`
`any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty,
`
`can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
`
`matters of opinion[.]”).
`
`Defendants criticize Campbell by arguing that its standard is unworkable.
`
`But judges ferret out intent every day—from specific-intent crimes, to fraud, to
`
`workplace discrimination, to trademark infringement. Campbell was easy to apply
`
`here because Defendants’ internal emails state that, instead of following library
`
`weeding procedures, “Commissioner Moss and Judge Cunningham have instructed
`
`Amber, the head librarian, to remove certain books[.]” ROA.1526. And while
`
`Defendants attempt to nitpick the District Court’s factual findings, they ignore both
`
`the standard of review (clear error) and the overwhelming evidence of viewpoint
`
`discrimination. Defendants discussed banning books in their internal emails,
`
`circulated a list of books to censor, referred to books about politics and history as
`
`“pornographic filth,” claimed to have removed books that were in pristine
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`condition because they were dilapidated, and offered other testimony inconsistent
`
`with the documentary record.
`
`Campbell has been the legal standard in this Circuit for almost 30 years
`
`without a flood of lawsuits. The District Court’s faithful application of Campbell to
`
`the facts of this case should be affirmed.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`Summary of Facts and Evidence
`After considering extensive briefing, 65 declarations, 120 exhibits, and two
`
`days of live testimony, the District Court found that Defendants censored 17 books
`
`(the “Banned Books”) from the Llano County Library because they disagreed with
`
`the ideas in them. Defendants called the books “pornographic filth,” ROA.1503,
`
`“disgusting,” ROA.1541, and “inappropriate,” ROA.1526. The evidence
`
`supporting the District Court’s findings is detailed in ECF No. 101-2 (“Pl. Br.”),
`
`which is incorporated by reference. Below is a brief summary.
`
`1.
`Defendants Censored Books with Ideas They Disliked
`In summer 2021, Defendants Llano County, its officials Ron Cunningham
`
`(Llano County Judge), Jerry Don Moss (Llano County Commissioner), and Amber
`
`Milum (Llano County Library System Director), and certain Llano County
`
`residents (later appointed to Llano County Library Board) began censoring books
`
`at the Llano County public library. First, they censored well-known children’s
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`books that made light of bodily functions (the “Butt” and “Fart” books). Next, they
`
`censored books with nudity (1971 Caldecott Award winner In the Night Kitchen,1
`
`and It’s Perfectly Normal, a book discussing puberty).
`
`At the same time, at the behest of then-private-citizen Defendant Bonnie
`
`Wallace to remove library books she personally opposed, ROA.1503—including
`
`“objection[able]” books identified by Texas State Representative Matt Krause
`
`about politics, race, sexuality, and gender identity, ROA.1505-23— Defendants
`
`compiled a “list of books that [Defendant] Wallace thought were inappropriate and
`
`should be removed from the Llano County Library System” (the “Wallace List”).
`
`ROA.1503, 3509-10, 3942:13-21, 3951:6-9, 3959:15-25. These books, which
`
`Defendants’ internal emails described as “pornographic filth,” ROA.350-51, 353-
`
`54, 1502-04, 3509-10, included Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents and They
`
`Called Themselves the KKK: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group. Within 48
`
`hours of receiving a copy of the Wallace List, Defendant Milum, the Library
`
`System Director, permanently removed six books (the two noted above and four
`
`others involving teen sexuality/gender identity issues) from the Llano Branch.
`
`ROA.3960:1-9. She instructed Suzette Baker, then-head librarian of the Kingsland
`
`Branch, to remove from that branch all books on the Wallace List. ROA.216. Ms.
`
`
`1 Twice, Ms. Milum testified under oath that she removed In the Night Kitchen
`“based on inappropriate content.” ROA.3965:5-8, 3965:19-3966:1-6.
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`Baker refused to engage in “censorship” because she believed that Ms. Milum’s
`
`“order to remove books” based solely on Ms. Wallace’s and Judge Cunningham’s
`
`disapproval “was illegal.” Id. Defendant Milum oversaw the removal of the books
`
`from the Llano branch anyway. Id.
`
`Defendants had censored at least 17 books before Plaintiffs filed suit.
`
`Throughout this period, Defendants repeatedly thanked Commissioner Moss and
`
`Judge Cunningham for forcing Ms. Milum to remove the books they found
`
`objectionable. ROA.1525-26, 1540-41.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Offered a Pretextual Explanation for Censoring
`the Banned Books
`Despite contemporaneous evidence to the contrary, Defendants claimed at
`
`the preliminary injunction hearing that they censored the Banned Books under
`
`routine library “weeding” procedures. Like many modern libraries, the Library
`
`System has adopted the industry-accepted MUSTIE standard for removing books
`
`from its collection. Under this standard, the library removes (or “weeds”) books
`
`when they are “Misleading and/or factually inaccurate,” “Ugly (worn out beyond
`
`mending or rebinding),” “Superseded by a new edition or a better source,” “Trivial
`
`(of no discernable literary or scientific merit), “Irrelevant to the needs and interests
`
`of the community,” [or] “Elsewhere (… easily borrowed from another source).”
`
`ROA.1544. Historically, the Library System would not consider weeding a book
`
`unless it met at least two or three MUSTIE criteria. ROA.3891:17-21, 4204:2-5.
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`Defendants did not follow the MUSTIE factors when they censored the 17
`
`books. Pl. Br. 10. When confronted about this, they offered pretextual
`
`explanations. For example, Defendant Milum denied that she had removed In the
`
`Night Kitchen because of Judge Cunningham’s directive, ROA.3963:20-23, and
`
`she testified that she “weeded” In the Night Kitchen because it “was old and worn”
`
`and therefore Ugly. ROA.3963:24-25. But the book, which the District Court saw
`
`at the preliminary injunction hearing, was “in excellent condition” and lacked “any
`
`tears or stains or any damage” when introduced into evidence. ROA.1821-69,
`
`4120:11-4121:7. Defendant Milum likewise testified that she “weeded” Caste—a
`
`popular bestseller purchased within the last two years—but could not identify
`
`which MUSTIE criteria called for its removal. ROA.3961:6-9.
`
`None of the Banned Books satisfied the library’s requirement of meeting
`
`two MUSTIE criteria before removal. ROA.1660-65, 3903:15-3904:3, 3905:7-
`
`3908:16, 3910:1-3911:8, 3911:16-3912:19, 3913:12-3914:14, 3915:5-18. Most did
`
`not even arguably satisfy one. ROA.1660-65, 3912:14-19, 3913:20-25. And their
`
`removal was not necessary to clear library shelf space—another pretextual reason
`
`Defendants offered, ROA.3527—because Llano County had already suspended
`
`library purchases partway through Defendants’ censorship campaign.
`
`ROA.4199:25-4200:5.
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The Factual Record Overwhelmingly Supports the District
`Court’s Decision under the Applicable Standard of Review
`The live witness testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, mainly
`
`Defendants’ own documents, was overwhelming.2 Among other things:
`
`There was no error here. Overwhelming evidence supports the District
`
`Court’s factual findings that Defendants censored the Banned Books. Among other
`
`things:
`
`(cid:120) Defendants’ internal emails suggest that removing books from the library
`
`would amount to “censor[ing]” them, ROA.1503;
`
`(cid:120) Defendants created and circulated a list of books they “thought were
`
`inappropriate and should be removed,” ROA.3959:15-25;
`
`(cid:120) Defendants did not follow the library’s weeding procedures in censoring
`
`the Banned Books, ignoring one librarian’s protest that Defendants’
`
`removal of the Banned Books constituted censorship, was “illegal,” and
`
`violated the First Amendment, ROA.216;
`
`
`2 Defendants’ lead argument in their supplemental brief tries to rewrite several of
`the District Court’s factual findings. But they ignore that this Court reviews factual
`findings for clear error. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 574
`(1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s
`choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”); Hopwood v. State of Texas,
`236 F.3d 256, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2000) (“To be clearly erroneous, a decision … must
`be dead wrong.”).
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`(cid:120) Defendants offered a pretextual explanation for censoring the Banned
`
`Books that was refuted by the contemporaneous documentation,
`
`ROA.3526-28; and
`
`(cid:120) After Defendants’ lawyer donated copies of the Banned Books to the
`
`library to try to moot this lawsuit, Defendants subjected them to invidious
`
`treatment by holding them in a place where the public would not know
`
`about them.3
`
`Such evidence is more than sufficient to support the District Court’s finding
`
`that Defendants censored books because they disagreed with their viewpoints.
`
`Defendants offer seven pages of argument about mistakes the District Court
`
`and the Court’s panel supposedly made. ECF No. 205-2 (“Supp. Br.”) 3-11. These
`
`contentions are inaccurate, are based on post-hoc declarations that contradict their
`
`live testimony, and ignore the District Court’s credibility findings. Even if
`
`Defendants’ contentions were accurate, they would not show that the District
`
`Court’s findings were clearly erroneous given the other overwhelming evidence,
`
`including the evidence cited above, that Defendants overlook.
`
`
`3 Defendants tried to prevent the District Court from learning the identity of the
`donor by claiming that the donation was “attorney-client privilege.” ROA.3986:12-
`19.
`
`EN BANC SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
` 9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 230-1 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/03/2024
`
`
`
`For example, Defendants claim that the panel erred in stating “[Milum]
`
`pulled no other books for review during that time period” because she pulled
`
`other books for review between August 5, 2021 and November 18, 2021. Supp. Br.
`
`4 (quoting ECF No. 164 (“Panel Op.”) 4) (emphasis added). But the panel is
`
`referring to November 2021, after the Wallace List was transmitted, not the
`
`broader date range Defendants proffer. And the panel’s observation is based on
`
`Milum’s own testimony:
`
`Q: Did you pull other books not on the list to see if they
`were getting checked out in November –
`A: No
`Q: – of 2021? No? Only the books on Ms. Wallace’s list?
`A: Yes.
`ROA.3954:2-5. If the statement is untrue, it is only because Milum’s sworn
`
`testimony was incorrect (again).
`
`Defendants also contend that the panel incorrectly concluded that Defendant
`
`Milum “likely weeded these [17] books because she was told to by those who
`
`disagreed with their message.” Supp. Br. 8. Defendants argue that the removal was
`
`temporary, pointing to a single email that refers to remo