Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`No. 23-50224
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`LEILA GREEN LITTLE; JEANNE PURYEAR; KATHY KENNEDY; REBECCA JONES;
`RICHARD DAY; CYNTHIA WARING; 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; 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
`
`BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`(Counsel Listed Inside Cover)
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`Katherine P. Chiarello
`(TX Bar No. 24006994)
`Ryan A. Botkin
`(TX Bar No. 00793366)
`María Amelia Calaf
`(TX Bar No. 24081915)
`Ian C. Crichton
`(TX Bar No. 24133100)
`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
`ian@bccaustin.com
`
`Ellen V. Leonida
`(CA Bar No. 184194)
`Matthew Borden
`(CA Bar No. 214323)
`Marissa R. Benavides
`(NY Bar No. 5796891)
`Max Bernstein
`(NY Bar No. 5609037)
`Kory James DeClark
`(CA Bar No. 310571)
`BraunHagey & Borden LLP
`351 California Street, 10th Floor
`Tel: 415-599-0210
`Fax: 415-276-1808
`leonida@braunhagey.com
`borden@braunhagey.com
`benavides@braunhagey.com
`bernstein@braunhagey.com
`declark@braunhagey.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`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
`Ian C. Crichton
`Botkin Chiarello Calaf PLLC
`
`Ellen V. Leonida
`Matthew Borden
`Marissa R. Benavides
`Max Bernstein
`Kory James DeClark
`BraunHagey & Borden LLP
`
`Defendants-Appellants
`Llano County
`Ron Cunningham
`Jerry Don Moss
`Peter Jones
`Mike Sandoval
`Linda Raschke
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Amber Milum
`Bonnie Wallace
`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
`
`
`/s/ Ellen Leonida
`Ellen V. Leonida
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees respectfully submit that oral argument will be helpful to
`
`the Court and is appropriate. This is an interlocutory appeal from a grant of
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. After holding a two-day evidentiary
`
`hearing and receiving post-hearing briefing from the parties, the District Court
`
`made factual findings in Plaintiffs’ favor on all four preliminary injunction factors,
`
`including that Defendants likely engaged in viewpoint and content-based
`
`discrimination in removing books they personally disliked from the local public
`
`library. In granting the requested relief, the District Court relied on an extensive
`
`factual record below. Oral argument will assist the Court in understanding the
`
`factual basis supporting the District Court’s sound exercise of its discretion to
`
`grant the preliminary injunction.
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS .................................................. i
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ......................................... iii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. vii
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW................................ 2
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Action Below .............................................................................. 3
`B.
`Evidence Presented at the Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing .... 4
`1.
`Defendants Remove Children’s Books that Make Jokes about
`Bodily Functions from the Public Library ..................................... 5
`Defendants Target Books Containing Nudity ............................... 6
`Defendants Target Books about Race, Gender, and Sexuality
`that Defendant Wallace Identified ................................................... 7
`Defendants Do Not Follow Routine Weeding Procedure in
`Removing the 17 Books .................................................................... 9
`Defendants Attempt to Moot the Case by Having Their Lawyer
`Buy and Donate Copies of the Banned Books .............................11
`Procedural History ........................................................................... 13
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`The District Court’s Decision .......................................................... 13
`D.
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................. 16
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 18
`PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE
`I.
`MERITS ................................................................................................... 18
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The First Amendment Prohibits Removal of Library Books Based on
`Viewpoint or Content-Based Discrimination.................................... 19
`1.
`Campbell Prohibits Viewpoint Based Discrimination in Library
`Book Removal ....................................................................................21
`Content-Based Discrimination is Unconstitutional Unless it is
`Narrowly Tailored to Achieve a Compelling Government
`Interest .................................................................................................23
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`The District Court’s Factual Finding that Defendants’ Removal of the
`Disputed Books Was Based on Viewpoint and Content Discrimination
`Was Not Clear Error ........................................................................ 24
`Defendants Do Not Present Compelling Arguments for Either
`Overturning Campbell or Rejecting the District Court’s Factual
`Findings ........................................................................................... 29
`1.
`Defendants Fail to Show that the District Court’s Findings of
`Discrimination and Pretext Were Clearly Erroneous ................. 31
`Defendants Arguments Are Inconsistent With Fifth Circuit
`Precedent and Do Not Establish That Viewpoint or Content
`Discrimination Is Permissible in Library Book Removal
`Decisions ............................................................................................ 35
`PLAINTIFFS HAVE ASSERTED AN ONGOING FIRST
`AMENDMENT INJURY......................................................................... 47
`A. Defendants Cannot Recast Their Mootness Claims as a Standing
`Argument to Avoid the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine ..................... 48
`Defendants Have Not Proven that the District Court’s Findings of
`Ongoing Injury Were Clearly Erroneous .......................................... 50
`III. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT
`THE EQUITIES AND PUBLIC INTEREST WEIGH IN
`FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ...................................................................... 53
`A. Defendants Have Not Shown that the District Erred in Finding that the
`Balance of the Equities Favors Plaintiffs .......................................... 54
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Defendants Have Not Shown that the District Court Erred by Finding
`that the Public Interest Weighs in Favor of Plaintiffs ....................... 55
`IV. THE INJUNCTION IS PROPER IN SCOPE ........................................ 57
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 58
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................... 60
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................ 61
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,
`568 U.S. 85 (2013) ............................................................................................48
`Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.,
`470 U.S. 564 (1985) ..........................................................................................25
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bluefield Water Association, Inc. v. City of Starkville, Miss.,
`577 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................25
`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
`Case v. Unified School District No. 233,
`908 F. Supp. 864 (D. Kan. 1995) .......................................................................22
`Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. BPArn. Prod. Co.,
`704 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................48
`Chiras v. Miller,
`432 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... passim
`City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.,
`455 U.S. 283 (1982) ..........................................................................................50
`Counts v. Cedarville School District,
`295 F. Supp. 2d 996 (W.D. Ark. 2003) ........................................................ 22, 53
`Delcarpio v. St. Tammany Parish,
`2:93-cv-00531-PEC, 1993 WL 432360 (E.D. La. Oct. 20, 1993) .......................22
`Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. F.C.C.,
`518 U.S. 727 (1989) ..........................................................................................52
`Doe v. City of Albuquerque,
`667 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012) .........................................................................42
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Doe v. Duncanville Independant School District,
`994 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1993) .............................................................................50
`Doe v. Indian River School District,
`653 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2011) ..............................................................................51
`Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.,
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) ..........................................................................................47
`G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission,
`23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1984) .............................................................................56
`Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield,
`218 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1954) .............................................................................33
`Hopwood v. State of Texas,
`236 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................25
`International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee,
`505 U.S. 672 (1992) .................................................................................... 42, 46
`Knox v. SEIU,
`567 U.S. 298 (2012) .................................................................................... 48, 50
`Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown,
`958 F.2d 1242 (3d Cir. 1992).............................................................................42
`Kristensen v. United States,
`993 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................25
`
`Lewis v. Woods,
`848 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................52
`Marbury v. Madison,
`1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) .......................................................................49
`Matal v. Tam,
`582 U.S. 218 (2017) .................................................................................... 44, 45
`McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
`514 U.S. 334 (1995) ..........................................................................................51
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Murray v. West Baton Rouge Parish School Board,
`472 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1973) .............................................................................37
`National Endowment for Arts v. Finley,
`524 U.S. 569 (1998) ..........................................................................................44
`Neinast v. Board of Trustees of Columbus Metropolitan Library,
`346 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................42
`NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton,
`49 F.4th 439 (5th Cir. 2022) ..............................................................................41
`
`Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association,
`460 U.S. 37 (1983) ............................................................................................23
`
`Plains Cotton Coop. Association of Lubbock, Tex. v. Goodpasture Computer
`Service, Inc.,
`807 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1987) ...........................................................................51
`Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee,
`862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................51
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona,
`576 U.S. 155 (2015) .................................................................................... 20, 24
`Reno v. A.C.L.U.,
`521 U.S. 844 (1997) ..........................................................................................37
`Robinson v. Hunt County,
`921 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 19, 23
`Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia,
`515 U.S. 819 (1995) ..........................................................................................19
`Rust v. Sullivan,
`500 U.S. 173 (1991) ..........................................................................................44
`Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011) ..........................................................................................52
`Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves,
`979 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................50
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Spell v. Edwards,
`962 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................48
`Stanley v. Georgia,
`394 U.S. 557 (1969) ..........................................................................................21
`Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas,
`121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000) ........................................................ passim
`Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission,
`732 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 15, 55, 56
`United States v. American Library Association, Inc.,
`539 U.S. 194 (2003) ................................................................................... passim
`United States v. Guzman-Rendon,
`864 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................43
`United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.,
`529 U.S. 803 (2000) ..........................................................................................52
`United States v. Whitfield,
`590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................38
`Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski,
`141 S. Ct. 792 (2021).........................................................................................47
`Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,
`576 U.S. 200 (2015) ..........................................................................................44
`
`Yarls v. Bunton,
`905 F.3d 905 (5th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................49
`Statutes
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) ..............................................................................................44
`Rules
`Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 1.08 ...............................................................49
`Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 3.08 ...............................................................49
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2949 (3d ed. 2023) .......................................................33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Can government officials freely purge public libraries of any books
`
`containing ideas those officials want to prevent library patrons from accessing?
`
`The Court has already answered that question unequivocally in the negative. In
`
`Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, the Court stated that library
`
`patrons “have a First Amendment right to receive information” that is violated
`
`when government officials remove library books “substantially based on an
`
`unconstitutional motivation”—namely, the desire to deny “access to ideas with
`
`which the [] officials disagree.” 64 F.3d 184, 188, 190 (5th Cir. 1995). The
`
`Campbell court held that the factual question “at the heart of this First Amendment
`
`case” is “the true, decisive motivation behind” the removing officials’ decision. Id.
`
`at 190. Where an official’s motivation for removal of library books is improper, no
`
`further inquiry is required and the official’s action violates the First Amendment.
`
`Id. at 190-91.
`
`Here, Llano County officials removed books—including award-winning
`
`books about race, history, and politics—from public libraries because they found
`
`the books’ viewpoints and contents “objectionable.” ROA.3525-26. The District
`
`Court found that “Defendants’ decisions were likely motivated by a desire to limit
`
`access” to the ideas in those books. ROA.3525-26. Consequently, the court
`
`concluded that “the ‘substantial motivation’ for Defendants’ actions appears to be
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`discrimination,” ROA.3528, and that Plaintiffs were suffering irreparable harm
`
`from the “ongoing infringement” of their constitutional rights. ROA.3529.
`
`To resolve this appeal, the Court need only apply its own, binding
`
`precedent—directly on point in this book removal case—to the District Court’s
`
`factual finding that Llano County officials acted with an impermissible motivation.
`
`Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the decision before the Court misrepresent the
`
`record below, ignore the District Court’s extensive factual findings, and misapply
`
`the law.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
`
`1.
`
`Did the District Court clearly err in finding that Defendants removed
`
`17 books from the public library because of their viewpoint and content, when the
`
`books did not meet the library’s own criteria for “weeding” books, Defendants’
`
`internal communications referred to the books as “pornographic filth,” and
`
`Defendants offered demonstrably false testimony and pretextual explanations to
`
`justify their removal?
`
`2.
`
`Did the District Court act within its discretion when it issued a
`
`preliminary injunction restoring the status quo by preventing Defendants from
`
`hiding the 17 books from library patrons until the merits of the case are decided?
`
`3.
`
`Can Defendants moot the need for an injunction by having their
`
`lawyer buy the 17 books in question and place them in a non-public room in the
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`library, where their presence is not listed in the library catalogue, is not advertised
`
`to patrons, and is not communicated by the library through the channels normally
`
`employed to tell library patrons that books are available?
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A. The Action Below
`Plaintiffs-Appellees Leila Green Little, Jeanne Puryear, Kathy Kennedy,
`
`Rebecca Jones, Richard Day, Cynthia Waring, and Diane Moster (“Plaintiffs”) are
`
`patrons of Llano County public libraries. ROA.3507.
`
`Defendants-Appellants are Llano County, Texas and the individuals who
`
`ordered and effected the removal of the books at issue in this lawsuit from the
`
`County’s main public library. Defendant Ron Cunningham serves as County Judge
`
`and Defendants Jerry Don Moss, Peter Jones, Mike Sandoval, and Linda Raschke
`
`serve as County Commissioners. ROA.237. Defendant Amber Milum is the Llano
`
`County Library System Director. ROA.237. Defendants Bonnie Wallace, Rochelle
`
`Wells, Gay Baskin, and Rhonda Schneider advocated for the book removal and
`
`were subsequently appointed by the Commissioners Court to sit on the County’s
`
`Library Advisory Board. ROA.237.
`
`Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that Llano County, its County
`
`Commissioners, Library Advisory Board members, and Library System Director,
`
`acting under color of state law, violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment and Due
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Process rights by removing popular, critically acclaimed books from the Llano
`
`library simply because those books express views and contain content that do not
`
`align with the personal and political views of Llano County officials. ROA.65
`
`(First Amendment), ROA.67 (Due Process). Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary
`
`injunction to restore those books to the Llano library while their claims are tried.
`
`B.
`
`Evidence Presented at the Preliminary Injunction Motion
`Hearing
`In support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs presented
`
`evidence that Defendants removed 17 books from the Llano library (the “Banned
`
`Books”)1 because they disliked the authors’ viewpoints and the books’ contents.
`
`ROA.3523. Plaintiffs also presented evidence that Library Director Milum was not
`
`merely “weeding” the books using standard library procedures. The District Court
`
`credited this evidence based on the facts below:
`
`
`1 The 17 Banned Books include My Butt Is So Noisy!, I Broke My Butt!, and I Need
`a New Butt! by Dawn McMillan (the “Butt Books”); Larry the Farting
`Leprechaun, Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose, Freddie the Farting
`Snowman, and Harvey the Heart Had Too Many Farts by Jane Bexley (the “Fart
`Books”); In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak; It’s Perfectly Normal:
`Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robie Harris; Caste:
`The Origins of Our Discontent by Isabel Wilkerson; They Called Themselves the
`K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Campbell Bartoletti;
`Spinning by Tillie Walden; Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen by Jazz
`Jennings; Shine and Under the Moon: A Catwoman Tale by Lauren Myracle; Gabi,
`a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero; and Freakboy by Kristin Elizabeth Clark.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Defendants Remove Children’s Books that Make Jokes
`about Bodily Functions from the Public Library
`Library System Director Milum personally selected for inclusion in the
`
`children’s section of the Llano library a number of children’s books that make light
`
`of flatulence (referenced below as the “Butt and Fart Books”). She chose the books
`
`based on her training and experience. In summer 2021, in response to directions
`
`from her Llano County superiors, Milum removed all seven titles from the Library
`
`System. See ROA.1660-61, 3936-37, 3997-98, 4042.
`
`Milum’s removal of the seven books resulted from complaints made by
`
`Defendants Wells and Schneider.2 See, e.g., ROA.3894:20-22, 3934:1-2, 4047:9-
`
`4048:14, 1660-61. Before Milum removed the books, Wells and Schneider
`
`repeatedly checked them out to keep them off the shelves and make them
`
`inaccessible to other library patrons. ROA.3894:20-24, 4084:23-4085:10, 4185:23-
`
`4186:3. Then Wells, who “believe[s] the Fart Books don’t belong in our library,”
`
`asked Milum and Llano County officials Judge Cunningham and Commissioner
`
`Moss to remove the Butt and Fart Books from the Library System. ROA.4048:10-
`
`4055:1.
`
`
`2 At the time of these complaints, both Wells and Schneider were local residents.
`Each was placed on the Llano County Library Advisory Board, replacing longtime
`board members who were ousted with no contemporaneous explanation. ROA.237.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`In response to Wells’ requests, Defendants Cunningham and Moss directed
`
`Milum to remove the Butt and Fart Books. ROA.1498, 3937:1-3, 4042:7-11,
`
`3997:24-3998:5. Milum followed her superiors’ directives, taking the books from
`
`the shelves3 and deleting them from the Library System catalog. ROA.3509, see
`
`ROA.1660-61, 3934:18-21, 3936:9-25, 4042:7-11, 3997:24-3998:5.4
`
`Defendants Target Books Containing Nudity
`2.
`After the Butt and Fart Books were removed, Cunningham instructed Milum
`
`to remove from the shelves “[a]ny books with photos of naked or sexual conduct
`
`regardless if they are animated or actual photos[.]” ROA.1667, 3509, 3939:1-17,
`
`4218. Milum obeyed his directive, closing the library for three days as librarians
`
`followed Cunningham’s instructions: hundreds of books, including books about
`
`potty training and getting dressed, disappeared. ROA.3899:21-3900:20, 3979:8-14.
`
`One casualty of this purge was Maurice Sendak’s classic, Caldecott Award-
`
`winning book In the Night Kitchen, which Milum removed because it includes
`
`
`3 Five of the books were newly ordered by Milum and had not yet been added to
`the library shelves before Milum disposed of them in response to these directives.
`ROA.3903-05.
` At the preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing (“Evidentiary Hearing”), Milum
`attempted to deny that she removed the Butt and Fart Books at least in part because
`she was so directed by Moss, but after reviewing her contemporaneous notes of the
`meeting—“an accurate reflection of the conversation”—she agreed she had been
`so instructed. ROA.3936:5-12, 1409. She also agreed that “Cunningham also
`directed [her] to remove the books.” ROA.3937:1-3.
`
` 4
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`illustrations of a naked toddler. ROA.3940:13-19, 3941:9-15, 3963:5-8.
`
`Defendants also removed It’s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris, an illustrated
`
`children’s health book that helps readers understand puberty and discusses ways to
`
`stay safe on the internet. ROA.3898:10-24, 3899:13-20, 3945:3-11, 4219:5-10.
`
`Wells thanked Moss for “making [Milum] remove [It’s Perfectly Normal] because
`
`of its ‘disgusting’ photos.” ROA.1540-41.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants Target Books about Race, Gender, and
`Sexuality that Defendant Wallace Identified
`On October 25, 2021, Texas State Representative Matt Krause published a
`
`16-page list of allegedly “objectionable” books about race, politics, sexuality, and
`
`gender identity (the “Krause List”). ROA.1505-23. Wells and her associates agreed
`
`by email to review a “couple of pages each” of the “16 pages of [Krause List]
`
`books” to see if any of the titles were available in the Library System. ROA.1525-
`
`26. The resulting table of Krause List titles available in the Library System,
`
`referred to below as the “Wallace List,” was “the list of books that Bonnie Wallace
`
`thought were inappropriate and should be removed from the Llano County Library
`
`System.”5 ROA.3509-10, 3942:13-21, 3951:6-9, 3959:15-25.6 Milum’s “boss”
`
`
`5 The books on the Wallace List included Caste; They Called Themselves the
`K.K.K.; Spinning; Being Jazz; Shine; Gabi, a Girl in Pieces; and Freakboy.
`ROA.1527.
`6 Subsequently, in an email thread including Moss, Wells reported that Moss and
`Cunningham had “instructed [Milum] to … remove certain books,” including
`Lawn Boy, Gender Queer, and “the Butt Book,” and she thanked Moss “for [his]
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Cunningham sent her the Wallace List on November 10, 2021, forwarding an
`
`email describing the books on the list as “pornographic filth.” ROA.1502-04,
`
`3509-10, 3960:1-9, 3966:21-3967:6. Milum testified: “When I received [the
`
`Wallace List], we went and pulled all of those books.” ROA.3510, 3952:8-9.
`
`On October 28, 2021, Milum emailed Cunningham about the book How to
`
`Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi, which she referred to as the “[c]ritical race
`
`theory book,” and which Milum noted she and Cunningham had previously
`
`discussed. ROA.1524, 3948:2-21. Milum explained that she “wanted to let
`
`[Cunningham] know before it came up in any of [his] meetings” that, although the
`
`book was still in the system, it was now hidden behind the front desk and was “no
`
`longer on the shelf.” ROA.1524.
`
`By the end of 2021, Defendants had removed the remaining Banned
`
`Books—all of which were on the Wallace List—from the Llano library, in addition
`
`to the Butt and Fart Books, In the Night Kitchen, and It’s Perfectly Normal.
`
`ROA.3510, 3933:23-3934:2, 3945:3-5, 3951:6-3954:25, 3962:23-3963:3.
`
`
`help in this situation and all [he had] done to remedy it!” ROA.1525-26, 4088:10-
`19. Wells then reported that the work of ascertaining which of the “CRT and
`LGBTQ book[s]” were in the Library System had been completed. Their next steps
`were to “research the content of the ones [they had] found,” along with related
`other titles and to send a list “of the ones that are found to be inappropriate, along
`with a summary, to Commissioner Moss.” ROA.1525-26.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 99-1 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/26/2023
`
`
`
`Defendants admitted that the reason that these “CRT and LGBTQ” books
`
`were “selected for weeding” was because they were on the Wallace List.
`
`ROA.3510, 3952:3-10, 3952:24-3953:3, 3954, 3964. Milum also admitted that no
`
`books other than those on the Wallace List were selected for “weeding” at that
`
`time. ROA.3954