Latest news with #FifthCircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana Attorney General files petition for full Fifth Circuit to rehear Ten Commandments law
BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — On Thursday, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a petition for the full Fifth Circuit Court to review the state's Ten Commandment Law. 'The Fifth Circuit's panel decision in this case directly rejected the Fifth Circuit's own precedents and precedents from other circuits and the Supreme Court. This is exactly the sort of case that warrants full Court review, and we appreciate the Court's careful consideration,' Murrill said in a release. On June 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the state's law to display the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. This bill passed in the 2024 Regular Legislative Session. Murrill argues that the ruling lacks standing, meaning the plaintiff has not encountered a Ten Commandments display. According to a Fifth Circuit precedent, an encounter with a religious display is required to establish standing. The state also believes the panel misused the 'Lemon v. Kurtzman' test. Louisiana says the panel used an outdated framework instead of using a historical analysis. Murrill wants the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case to allow HB 71 to be implemented. Timeline of Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law: June 19, 2024: A bill requiring public schools and universities to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms was passed during the 2024 Regular Legislative Session. June 24, 2024: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit claiming the law violated students' First Amendment rights. Some religious leaders and activists also voiced opposition to the law. Aug. 5, 2024: Murrill called for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing it was premature and that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate actual harm. July 19, 2024: Louisiana agreed to pause implementation of the law until a hearing could be held, initially scheduled for Nov. 15. Oct. 21, 2024: A hearing debated whether the law should go into effect while its constitutionality is litigated. The preliminary injunction allowed arguments on both sides regarding the posting of the Commandments. Nov. 12, 2024: A federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional, prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. Dec. 11, 2024: Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed an opening brief to defend Louisiana's Ten Commandments law in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Jan. 23, 2025: Oral arguments held in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to address the state's appeal of the preliminary injunction. June 20, 2025: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional. Reproductive rights groups fear SCOTUS ruling will inspire anti-abortion politicians Trump's attacks on CNN, Fox underscore effort to stifle questions, put media on back foot Bill Moyers, the former White House press secretary turned acclaimed TV journalist, dead at 91 Should ICE agents wear masks? Police seek tips after elderly woman hurt in Baton Rouge hit-and-run crash Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
30-05-2025
- General
- Newsweek
Censors Allowed to Remove Books From Libraries, Court Rules
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal appeals court has ruled that public library officials may remove books from shelves based on their content, the latest development in an ongoing national debate over censorship and free speech. On May 23, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling that said the removal of books based on their content likely violated patrons' First Amendment right to access information. Why It Matters The ruling marks a significant shift in the legal interpretation of First Amendment protections in public libraries, which have long been considered bastions of free expression. By granting library officials powers to remove books they deem inappropriate or ideologically objectionable, the Fifth Circuit has potentially empowered local governments to suppress certain ideas from public access. What To Know The case stems from a dispute in Llano County, Texas, where officials removed 17 books from the public library system in 2021 after receiving complaints from residents. The titles included books about the history of racism in the U.S., such as They Called Themselves the K.K.K.; a sex-education book for preteens; and books with LGBTQ+ themes, including Being Jazz by transgender activist Jazz Jennings. The list also includes a series of children's books with titles such as I Broke My Butt! and Larry the Farting Leprechaun. Books at the Rice University Library in Houston on April 26, 2022. Books at the Rice University Library in Houston on April 26, 2022.A group of residents sued, arguing that removing the books was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. A district court agreed, ordering officials to return the books to library shelves. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed that ruling in a 10–7 decision. Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in a 60-page majority opinion that "plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books." He contended that libraries' collections were "for expressive purposes," meaning "their collection decisions are therefore government speech." The ruling goes against past interpretations of Supreme Court precedent, which have broadly protected against viewpoint-based censorship in libraries. What People Are Saying Elly Brinkley, PEN America's attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs, said in a statement: "This astounding decision reveals either ignorance of the scale and danger of state censorship or deliberate indifference toward it. The record clearly shows that the government removed books based on politically-motivated viewpoint discrimination—a violation of constitutionally protected rights. "The court's embrace of the dangerous argument that the curation of library books constitutes 'government speech' immunizes state censorship from First Amendment scrutiny, essentially giving the government free rein to exert ideological control over what citizens can read in their public libraries." What Happens Next The Fifth Circuit's decision is binding in the states over which it has jurisdiction: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. However, the plaintiffs are expected to appeal the ruling, potentially setting the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court review that could define the future of content regulation in libraries across the country.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No right to information at public libraries, 5th Circuit rules
May 24 (UPI) -- A Texas public library did not violate patrons' right to free speech by removing books due to their content, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled on Friday. The entire appellate court, in a 10-7 decision, overturned federal district court and appellate court rulings finding the Llano County (Texas) Library System erred in removing 17 books due to their content. The courts initially ruled that library officials violated plaintiffs' right to receive information under the Constitution's Free Speech Clause by removing the books and ordered that they be returned to the library's shelves. The plaintiffs are seven library patrons who in 2022 filed a lawsuit challenging the removal of 17 books due to their "content on race, gender and sexuality as well as some children's books that contained nudity," the Austin American-Statesman reported. A federal district court and a three-judge appellate court panel each ruled against the library. The Fifth Circuit appellate court's en banc panel on Friday reversed the prior court decisions and dismissed the free speech claims against the Lloyd County Library System for two reasons. No right to receive information "Plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books," Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority decision. "Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech," Duncan continued. "Plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books," he said. "The First Amendment acknowledges no such right." Instead, a patron could order a book online, buy it from a bookstore or borrow it from a friend, Duncan wrote. "All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collection," he said. Such decisions are very subjective, and it's impossible to find widespread agreement on a standard to determine which books should or should not be made available, the majority ruling says. "May a library remove a book because it dislikes its ideas? Because it finds the book vulgar? Sexist? Inaccurate? Outdated? Poorly written?" Duncan wrote. "Heaven knows." The plaintiffs "took the baffling view that libraries cannot even remove books that espouse racism," Duncan added. Public library collections are 'government speech' The majority decision also ruled that the library's collection decisions are government speech and not subject to First Amendment-based free speech challenges. Duncan said many precedents affirm that "curating and presenting a collection of third-party speech" is an "expressive activity." Examples include editors choosing which stories to publish, television stations choosing which programs to air and museum officials deciding what to feature in exhibits. "In the same way, a library expresses itself by deciding how to shape its collection," Duncan wrote. He cited another court's ruling that said governments speak through public libraries by selecting which books to make available and which ones to exclude. "From the moment they emerged in the 19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature," Duncan said. "Libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes," he said. "Their collection decisions are, therefore, government speech." He called arguments made in the case "over-caffeinated" and said plaintiffs warned of "book bans," "pyres of burned books," and "totalitarian regimes." "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," one brief filed by plaintiffs claimed, according to Duncan. "Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books," he said. Won't 'join the book burners' Judge Stephen Higginson was joined by six others in a lengthy dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court in prior rulings affirmed the right to receive information and the right to be "free from officially prescribed orthodoxy," Higginson said. "Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas," Higginson wrote. "But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County Public Library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas," he said. The majority "forsakes core First Amendment principles and controlling Supreme Court law," he wrote. "Because I would not have our court 'join the book burners,'" Higginson said, "I dissent."
UPI
25-05-2025
- Politics
- UPI
No right to information at public libraries, 5th Circuit rules
A Texas county public library did not violate patrons' free speech rights by removing 17 titles from its shelves, an en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 10-7 decision on Friday. Photo by Activedia/Pixabay May 24 (UPI) -- A Texas public library did not violate patrons' right to free speech by removing books due to their content, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled on Friday. The entire appellate court, in a 10-7 decision, overturned federal district court and appellate court rulings finding the Llano County (Texas) Library System erred in removing 17 books due to their content. The courts initially ruled that library officials violated plaintiffs' right to receive information under the Constitution's Free Speech Clause by removing the books and ordered that they be returned to the library's shelves. The plaintiffs are seven library patrons who in 2022 filed a lawsuit challenging the removal of 17 books due to their "content on race, gender and sexuality as well as some children's books that contained nudity," the Austin American-Statesman reported. A federal district court and a three-judge appellate court panel each ruled against the library. The Fifth Circuit appellate court's en banc panel on Friday reversed the prior court decisions and dismissed the free speech claims against the Lloyd County Library System for two reasons. No right to receive information "Plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books," Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority decision. "Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech," Duncan continued. "Plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books," he said. "The First Amendment acknowledges no such right." Instead, a patron could order a book online, buy it from a bookstore or borrow it from a friend, Duncan wrote. "All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collection," he said. Such decisions are very subjective, and it's impossible to find widespread agreement on a standard to determine which books should or should not be made available, the majority ruling says. "May a library remove a book because it dislikes its ideas? Because it finds the book vulgar? Sexist? Inaccurate? Outdated? Poorly written?" Duncan wrote. "Heaven knows." The plaintiffs "took the baffling view that libraries cannot even remove books that espouse racism," Duncan added. Public library collections are 'government speech' The majority decision also ruled that the library's collection decisions are government speech and not subject to First Amendment-based free speech challenges. Duncan said many precedents affirm that "curating and presenting a collection of third-party speech" is an "expressive activity." Examples include editors choosing which stories to publish, television stations choosing which programs to air and museum officials deciding what to feature in exhibits. "In the same way, a library expresses itself by deciding how to shape its collection," Duncan wrote. He cited another court's ruling that said governments speak through public libraries by selecting which books to make available and which ones to exclude. "From the moment they emerged in the 19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature," Duncan said. "Libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes," he said. "Their collection decisions are, therefore, government speech." He called arguments made in the case "over-caffeinated" and said plaintiffs warned of "book bans," "pyres of burned books," and "totalitarian regimes." "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," one brief filed by plaintiffs claimed, according to Duncan. "Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books," he said. Won't 'join the book burners' Judge Stephen Higginson was joined by six others in a lengthy dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court in prior rulings affirmed the right to receive information and the right to be "free from officially prescribed orthodoxy," Higginson said. "Public libraries have long kept the people well informed by giving them access to works expressing a broad range of information and ideas," Higginson wrote. "But this case concerns the politically motivated removal of books from the Llano County Public Library system by government officials in order to deny public access to disfavored ideas," he said. The majority "forsakes core First Amendment principles and controlling Supreme Court law," he wrote. "Because I would not have our court 'join the book burners,'" Higginson said, "I dissent."
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court rules libraries have right to ‘government speech', can remove books based on content
AUSTIN (KXAN) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that libraries can take books off shelves based on their content, reversing a district court's decision in a case involving the Llano County Library. KXAN reached out to the parties in the case, and will update this story if we receive responses. Katherine P. Chiarello, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told KXAN in an email that their team is considering its next steps. 'It is very disappointing that, today, the Fifth Circuit has regressed from its long standing protection of a citizen's right to receive information under the First Amendment and that it has attempted to create a circuit split by dramatically expanding the scope of the government speech doctrine,' Chiarello said. In Friday's ruling, Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote that the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not grant a right to receive information. 'Yes, Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech. But plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books. The First Amendment acknowledges no such right,' Duncan wrote. 2024: Texas county removed 17 books from its libraries. An appeals court says eight must be returned The ruling calls this a relief, and that application of such a right 'would be a nightmare.' 'How would judges decide when removing a book is forbidden? No one in this case—not plaintiffs, nor the district court, nor the panel—can agree on a standard,' the ruling reads. The appeals court also said court precedence holds that collection decisions are speech. In this case, a decision would be 'government speech' protected by the First Amendment. 'From the moment they emerged in the mid-19th century, public libraries have shaped their collections to present what they held to be worthwhile literature. What is considered worthwhile, of course, evolves over the years,' said the court. 'But what has not changed is the fact, as true today as it was in 1850, that libraries curate their collections for expressive purposes. Their collection decisions are therefore government speech.' The justices also took aim at what it called 'unusually over-caffeinated arguments' made by the case's plaintiffs. 'Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library. One amicus intones: 'Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people,'' the ruling reads. 'All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections.' It said that readers who can't find a book are allowed to seek the book out elsewhere. The plaintiffs in the case could also try to look elsewhere, specifically to the US Supreme Court, for a potentially favorable ruling. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
