Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`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, 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 EN BANC
`
`(Counsel Listed Inside Cover)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`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.
`Benjamin A. West
`FROST BROWN TODD LLP
`2101 Cedar Springs Rd.
`Suite 900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`T: (214) 545-3472
`F: (214) 545-3473
`tfallen@fbtlaw.com
`bwest@fbtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae Freedom to Read Foundation,
`Texas Library Association, and American Library Association
`
`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
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`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: 247-2 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`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.
`
`Public libraries are havens of free inquiry, where patrons may choose
`classic or controversial books as they see fit. .................................................. 4
`
`A. At the nation’s founding, libraries were envisioned as citadels
`of American democracy. ....................................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Professional librarians are guided by well-established ethical
`canons and standards that favor no party, subject, or viewpoint. ......... 6
`
`“Weeding” library collections is an objective process, not the
`targeting of disfavored or controversial books...................................... 7
`
`Parents, not librarians or public officials, have the right and
`responsibility to control what their children read. ..............................10
`
`II.
`
`The First Amendment right to receive information must be upheld. ............12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The right to receive information is essential to the First
`Amendment. ........................................................................................12
`
`Pico has guided courts and libraries for decades. ...............................15
`
`The panel majority correctly aligned Pico and Campbell with
`American Library Association. ...........................................................17
`
`D. Appellants’ criticisms of Campbell are unfounded. ............................19
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`III. Under the guise of “government speech,” Appellants and the
`Attorneys General would give government officials carte blanche to
`target any controversial book they don’t like. ...............................................22
`
`IV. Appellants’ “in-house checkout system” is a transparent ploy to moot
`the lawsuit and remove controversial titles from library shelves. .................26
`
`Conclusion ...............................................................................................................28
`
`Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................31
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Am. C.L. Union of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
`557 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 16
`Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico,
`457 U.S. 853 (1982) .....................................................................................passim
`Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp.,
`463 U.S. 60 (1983) .............................................................................................. 14
`Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board
`64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995) .........................................................................passim
`Chiras v. Miller,
`432 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 19
`Erznoznik v. Jacksonville,
`422 U.S. 205 (1975) ............................................................................................ 14
`Fayetteville Pub. Library v. Crawford Cnty., Ark.,
`684 F. Supp. 3d 879 (W.D. Ark. 2023) .......................................................passim
`GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force v. Reynolds
`Nos. 24-1075 & 24-1082, 2024 WL 3736785
`(8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) ........................................................................................ 23
`Griswold v. Connecticut,
`381 U.S. 479 (1965) ............................................................................................ 14
`Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, Inc.,
`515 U.S. 557 (1995) ............................................................................................ 21
`Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown,
`958 F.2d 1242 (3d Cir. 1992) ....................................................................... 16, 19
`Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. by and through Levy,
`594 U.S. 180 (2021) ............................................................................................ 21
`Marsh v. Ala.,
`326 U.S. 501 (1946) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`Martin v. Struthers
`319 U.S. 141 (1943) ............................................................................................ 13
`Matal v. Tam,
`582 U.S. 218 (2017) ...................................................................................... 22, 23
`Minarcini v. Strongville City Sch. Dist.,
`541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976) ................................................................................ 6
`Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist.,
`158 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 16
`Moody v. Netchoice, LLC,
`144 S.Ct. 2383 (2024) ......................................................................................... 24
`New York Times v. Sullivan,
`376 U.S. 254 (1964) ............................................................................................ 20
`Packingham v. North Carolina
`582 U.S. 98 (2017) ........................................................................................ 13, 14
`PEN Am. Ctr., Inc. v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
`No. 3:23cv10385-TKW-ZCB, 2024 WL 133213 (N.D. Fla. Jan.
`12, 2024) ............................................................................................................. 23
`People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Gittens,
`414 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 24
`Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum,
`555 U.S. 460 (2009) ............................................................................................ 25
`Procunier v. Martinez
`416 U.S. 396 (1974) ............................................................................................ 13
`Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC,
`395 U.S. 367 (1969) ............................................................................................ 14
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.,
`576 U.S. 155 (2015) ............................................................................................ 21
`Shurtleff v. City of Boston
`596 U.S. 243 (2022) ............................................................................................ 24
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`St. Amant v. Thomas,
`390 U.S. 727 (1968) ............................................................................................ 20
`Stanley v. Georgia,
`394 U.S. 557 (1969) ...................................................................................... 12, 14
`Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex.,
`121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000) ............................................. 10, 12, 27, 28
`United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc.,
`539 U.S. 194 (2003) .....................................................................................passim
`Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumers Council, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 748 (1976) ............................................................................................ 15
`Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,
`576 U.S. 200 (2015) ............................................................................................ 25
`Winters v. New York,
`333 U.S. 507 (1948) ............................................................................................ 21
`Statutes
`13 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 1.84 ..................................................................................... 6
`Other Authorities
`Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/faq (last
`visited Sept. 10, 2024) ...................................................................................... 5, 7
`Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An
`Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations
`/minors (last visited Sept. 10, 2024) ................................................................... 11
`CAROL ALABASTER, DEVELOPING AN OUTSTANDING CORE
`COLLECTION (2d ed. 2010) .................................................................................. 28
`Lester Asheim, Not Censorship But Selection, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/NotCensorshipButSelection
`(last visited Sept. 10, 2024) .................................................................................. 9
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`BEDFORD PUBLIC LIBRARY CHILDREN’S AND UNATTENDED GUIDELINE,
`https://bedfordlibrary.org/wp-
`content/uploads/sites/66/2021/07/ChildrensAreaUnattendedPolicy_
`Jun2021.pdf (last visited Sept. 10, 2024) ........................................................... 11
`BURLESON LIBRARY, SAFE CHILD POLICY,
`https://www.burlesontx.com/1331/Safe-Child-Policy (last visited
`Sept. 10, 2024) .................................................................................................... 11
`GEOFFREY CHAUCER, THE CANTERBURY TALES, The Miller’s Tale,
`https://chaucer.fas.harvard.edu/pages/millers-prologue-and-tale ....................... 21
`CODE OF ETHICS, AM. LIBR. ASS’N, https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics
`(last visited Sept. 10, 2024) .................................................................................. 7
`Collection Maintenance & Weeding, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/
`weeding (last visited Sept. 10, 2024) ................................................................ 8, 9
`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
`Sept. 10, 2024) .................................................................................................... 22
`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 (2012) ....................................................................................... 5
`Interlibrary Loans, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://libguides.ala.org/Interlibraryloans (last visited Sept. 10,
`2024) ................................................................................................................... 28
`Krug & Harvey, ALA and Intellectual Freedom: A Historical
`Overview, INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM MANUAL xi, xv (Am. Libr.
`Ass’n 1974) ........................................................................................................... 6
`Jeanette Larson, CREW: A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries at
`11, TEX. STATE LIBR. & ARCHIVES COMM’N (2012),
`https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/ld/ld/pubs/
`crew/crewmethod12.pdf (last visited Sept. 10, 2024) .......................................... 9
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (last visited
`Sept. 10, 2024) ...................................................................................... 3, 6, 11, 29
`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................... 13
`Carry Mcbride, Ben Franklin: The Ultimate Bibliophile, NEW YORK
`PUBLIC LIBR. BLOG (Sept. 10, 2024),
`https://www.nypl.org/blog/2020/01/17/ben-franklin-library-lover ...................... 5
`NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STATS., DIGEST OF EDUC. STATS., Table
`701.60, Number of public libraries (for FY 2019-20),
`https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_701.60.asp
`(last visited Sept. 10, 2024) .................................................................................. 5
`POTTSBORO LIBRARY POLICIES,
`https://pottsborolibrary.com/about/polices/ (last visited Sept. 10,
`2024) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Top 10 Library Policies Every Small Community Library Should
`Have, TEXAS STATE LIBR. & ARCHIVES,
`https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ldn/plm/governance/policies (last visited
`Sept. 10, 2024) .................................................................................................... 11
`Reserve Instructions and Policies, TEXAS STATE UNIV., RESERVE
`SERVS., https://www.library.txst.edu/services/borrow-
`renew/reserve.html (last visited Sept. 10, 2024) ................................................ 27
`REBECCA VNUK, THE WEEDING HANDBOOK: A SHELF-BY-SHELF
`GUIDE 6 (2d ed. 2022) ........................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`
`The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) is a nonprofit organization
`
`established 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, including a broad array
`
`of authors and viewpoints; establish legal precedent for the freedom to read of all
`
`citizens; and protect the public against efforts to suppress or censor speech.
`
`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 supports and advocates for Texas librarians and strives for
`
`excellence in libraries and librarianship. The association’s core values include
`
`intellectual freedom, literacy, and lifelong learning, access to information, and
`
`ethical responsibility and integrity.
`
`The American Library Association (ALA) is a nonprofit, educational
`
`organization representing libraries and librarians throughout the United States.
`
`ALA’s membership includes over 5,000 organizational members and more than
`
`44,000 individual members. Members are in public libraries, academic libraries,
`
`special libraries, and school library media centers throughout the United States.
`
`Founded in 1876, ALA is committed to the preservation of the library as a resource
`
`indispensable to the intellectual, cultural, and educational welfare of the nation.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`FTRF, ALA, and TLA believe that the defining tenet of the library profession
`
`is the commitment to providing free and equal access to information at the library.
`
`Censoring books from public libraries violates this shared value and thus these
`
`Amici have a strong interest in the outcome of this case.1
`
`Appellants and Appellees do not oppose 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 FTRF, ALA, and TLA filed an amici curiae brief at the panel stage of this appeal. This brief is
`adapted from their panel-stage brief.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`At the heart of this dispute is the institution of the American public library—
`
`that quiet, “ubiquitous fixture[] in American cities and towns” where members of
`
`the public may browse, read, and think according to their own interests.2 Guided by
`
`highly trained professional librarians, public libraries have one goal: to provide
`
`books and other materials “for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all
`
`people of the community the library serves” by selecting materials “presenting all
`
`points of view on current or historical issues.”3 Essential to this mission is the
`
`promise that library materials will not be “proscribed or excluded because of partisan
`
`or doctrinal disapproval.”4
`
`Appellants and their supporting amici curiae, the Attorneys General of several
`
`states, see little value in that promise. In their view, the public library should not be
`
`the traditional locus of “freewheeling inquiry,”5 but a decidedly less free place,
`
`where government officials may censor any book based solely on its content or
`
`perceived viewpoint. Appellants and the Attorneys General ask this Court en banc
`
`
`2 Fayetteville Pub. Library v. Crawford Cnty., Ark., 684 F. Supp. 3d 879, 890 (W.D. Ark. 2023).
`3 LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, AM. LIBR. ASS’N, §§ I & II,
`https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (last visited Sept. 10, 2024).
`4 Id. § II.
`5 Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 915 (1982)
`(Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`to overrule decades of precedent, break entirely new doctrinal ground, and foment
`
`at least one circuit split.
`
`Under either their “government-speech” theory or their contraction of the First
`
`Amendment itself, Appellants and the Attorneys General seek a new—and deeply
`
`troubling—rule: that the First Amendment has no role in the American public
`
`library. They would transform libraries into vehicles for imposing the government’s
`
`view about “what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters
`
`of public opinion.”6 This benighted vision, and the legal arguments offered in
`
`support, contradict the centuries-old role of libraries in America, professional library
`
`practice, and decades of First Amendment jurisprudence.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Public libraries are havens of free inquiry, where patrons may
`choose classic or controversial books as they see fit.
`
`Underlying the differing positions of the parties and panel members are
`
`competing notions of what a public library is or ought to be. Amici—national and
`
`Texas-based library organizations—therefore offer the following background about
`
`the historical role of libraries and their place in American civic life.
`
`6 Id. at 872 (plurality op.).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`A. At the nation’s founding, libraries were envisioned as citadels of
`American democracy.
`
`The American public library predates the nation itself. In 1731, Benjamin
`
`Franklin—“the ultimate bibliophile”—was a founder of the country’s first lending
`
`library, the Library Company of Philadelphia.7 Franklin hoped that by having equal
`
`access to books, Americans would be “better instructed and more intelligent.”8
`
` “By the latter part of the 1800s, most major metropolitan cities in the country
`
`had a public library.”9 The American Library Association (ALA) was founded in
`
`1876 and accredits library academic programs in the United States.10 Today, over
`
`17,000 public library outlets exist around the country.11
`
`The civic role of public libraries has evolved along with their numbers.
`
`Having witnessed pyres of burned books kindling the rise of early twentieth-century
`
`totalitarian regimes, American librarians embraced a “basic position in opposition to
`
`
`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; See generally
`Fayetteville Pub. Library, 684 F. Supp. 3d at 889-90 (discussing history of American public
`libraries).
`8 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) (citation omitted)).
`9 Fayetteville Pub. Library, 684 F. Supp. 3d at 889.
`10 See Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/faq (last visited Sept. 10, 2024).
`11 NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STATS., DIGEST OF EDUC. STATS., Table 701.60, Number of public
`libraries (for FY 2019-20) n.1, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_701.60.asp
`(last visited Sept. 10, 2024).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`censorship.”12 In 1939, the ALA adopted its “Library Bill of Rights,” which
`
`confirms the essential role of public libraries: to serve as “forums for information
`
`and ideas” that are available to “all people of the community.”13 Under the Bill of
`
`Rights, libraries “should provide materials and information presenting all points of
`
`view on current and historical issues” with no prohibition on materials “because of
`
`partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”14
`
`Public libraries are therefore not places to “coerce the taste of others,”15 but
`
`rather serve as “a mighty resource in the free marketplace of ideas.”16
`
`B.
`
`Professional librarians are guided by well-established ethical
`canons and standards that favor no party, subject, or viewpoint.
`
`Professional librarians must satisfy rigorous academic requirements. In
`
`Texas, for example, a professional librarian in a public library must hold a
`
`specialized degree in librarianship from an ALA-accredited institution.17 The ALA
`
`accredits 68 programs at 64 institutions in the United States, Canada, and Puerto
`
`
`12 See United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc. (“ALA”), 539 U.S. 194, 238-39 (2003) (Souter, J.,
`dissenting) (citation omitted).
`13 LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS § 1, supra note 3.
`14 Id.
`15 Krug & Harvey, ALA and Intellectual Freedom: A Historical Overview, INTELLECTUAL
`FREEDOM MANUAL xi, xv (Am. Libr. Ass’n 1974), quoted in ALA, 539 U.S. at 239 (Souter, J.,
`dissenting).
`16 Minarcini v. Strongville City Sch. Dist., 541 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1976).
`17 See 13 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 1.84.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`Rico.18 Accreditation “assures that…programs meet appropriate standards of quality
`
`and integrity.”19
`
`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. Librarians agree that they will:
`
` “uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to
`censor library resources”;
`
` “distinguish between [their] personal convictions and professional
`duties”; and
`
` “not allow [] personal beliefs to interfere” with providing access to
`library information.21
`In short, librarians must not suppress books just because they are controversial
`
`or outside the mainstream.
`
`C.
`
`“Weeding” library collections is an objective process, not the
`targeting of disfavored or controversial books.
`
`This case involves one aspect of the librarian’s work: the periodic “weeding”
`
`of library collections. Appellants have attempted to characterize their efforts to
`
`
`18 Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions, supra note 10.
`19 Id.
`20 CODE OF ETHICS, AM. LIBR. ASS’N, https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics (last visited Sept. 10,
`2024).
`21 Id. ¶¶ 2, 7.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`remove or hide certain books from Llano Public Library branches as part of the
`
`standard “weeding” process. The district court correctly recognized this as a
`
`“pretextual” “post-hoc justification” for the suppression of books because of their
`
`ideas or perceived message.22
`
`Weeding is the periodic refreshing of public library collections by removing
`
`and replacing damaged or outdated books.23 This process is guided by “objective
`
`criteria,” which librarians apply based on their training and ethical obligations of
`
`viewpoint neutrality.24
`
`There are various methods for weeding library collections. One is the
`
`“CREW” method, which stands for “Continuous Review, Evaluation, and
`
`Weeding.”25 CREW contains six general guidelines under the acronym “MUSTIE”:
`
`Misleading: factually inaccurate
`Ugly: beyond mending or rebinding
`Superseded by a new edition or by a much better book on the subject
`Trivial: of no discernible literary or scientific merit
`Irrelevant to the needs and interests of the library’s community
`
`
`
`22 ROA.3526-27.
`23 See Collection Maintenance & Weeding, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/weeding (last visited Sept. 10,
`2024).
`24 CODE OF ETHICS, supra note 20.
`25 ROA.3508.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`Elsewhere: the material is easily obtainable from another library.26
`When weeding, the goal is “to maintain a collection that is free from outdated,
`
`obsolete, shabby, or no longer useful items.”27
`
`Weeding is not the removal of books that, in the view of government officials,
`
`contain “inappropriate” ideas or viewpoints. Professional librarian practice is
`
`crystal-clear: “While weeding is essential to the collection development process, it
`
`should not be used as a deselection tool for controversial materials.”28
`
`Unfortunately, that is what happened in Llano County. Based on a robust
`
`evidentiary record, the district court found that “well-regarded, prize-winning
`
`books” on topics like LGBTQ identity and race relations, along with children’s
`
`“potty humor” books, were “targeted and removed” “based on complaints” by
`
`community members.29 The complaints asserted that the books were “inappropriate”
`
`or “pornographic filth” because—among other things—they depicted cartoon
`
`nudity, discussed sexuality, or allegedly promoted “CRT” views.30
`
`
`26 Lester Asheim, Not Censorship But Selection, AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
`www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/NotCensorshipButSelection (last visited Sept. 10, 2024); see
`also REBECCA VNUK, THE WEEDING HANDBOOK: A SHELF-BY-SHELF GUIDE 6 (2d ed. 2022)
`(describing MUSTIE method).
`27 Jeanette Larson, CREW: A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries at 11, TEX. STATE LIBR. &
`ARCHIVES COMM’N (2012), at 11,
`https://www.tsl/texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/ld/ld/pubs/crew/crewmethod12.pdf (last
`visited Sept. 10, 2024).
`28 Collection Maintenance, supra note 23 (emphasis added).
`29 ROA.3524; ROA.3529.
`30 ROA.3524; ROA.3529.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 247-2 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/10/2024
`
`The removal of these books bears no relation to professional library practice
`
`or “weeding.” What happened in Llano County was not a function of limited shelf
`
`space or the other MUSTIE factors. Rather, it was a response to complaints by
`
`community members about the substance of the books themselves—the proverbial
`
`“heckler’s veto,” which has no place in the American public library.31
`
`D.
`
`Parents, not librarians or public officials, have the right and
`responsibility to control what their children read.
`
`Another misconception about library practice lurks below the surface of this
`
`dispute. Appellants purported to act out of concern that children visiting Llano’s
`
`public library branches might