Texas Library System Must Return Removed Books to Circulation

A Texas public library system that removed more than a dozen books was ordered to put them back into circulation and update catalogs to reflect that the books, many of which concerned LGBTQ+ or racism-related issues, are available for checkout, a federal court said.

The lawsuit coincides with an increase in school book bans, which have emerged as a political and cultural flashpoint. Nearly 2,532 school book bans affecting 1,648 titles have been documented from July 2021 to June 2022 by PEN America, a group dedicated to preservation of free expression. Most of the challenged books address LGBTQ+ issues or advance the position that systemic racism exists in the US.

Leila Green Little and other Llano County Library patrons sued county and library officials, alleging that the books were unlawfully pulled from the shelves because of a disagreement with their viewpoint or content. The patrons also said the library replaced its advisory board with community members who supported censorship, and closed board meetings to the public.

Little and the others are likely to prevail on their constitutional challenge, Judge Robert Pitman of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas said.

“Although libraries are afforded great discretion for their selection and acquisition decisions, the First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination,” the judge said March 30, granting the patrons’ request for a preliminary injunction that also stops the library from removing any more books while the lawsuit is pending.

The defendants have filed a notice of appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Books at issue include “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” by Pulitzer-winner Isabel Wilkerson; “Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen” by Jazz Jennings; and books related to sex education and bodily functions, including “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health” by Robie Harris.

Here, the evidence shows that the defendants “targeted and removed books, including well-regarded, prize-winning books, based on complaints that the books were inappropriate,” the court said.

The defendants said the books were merely “weeded,” a standard practice for culling books that are in poor condition, inaccurate, not circulating, or have declined in popularity.

But Pitman said there is no evidence any of the books were slated to be reviewed for weeding before the complaints.

The patrons also showed they would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, the judge said, despite the library’s contentions that the titles are accessible through a special in-house collection or interlibrary loan.

Books in the in-house collection must be requested despite not being listed in the library catalog, “an obvious and intentional effort by Defendants to make it difficult if not impossible to access the materials Plaintiffs seek,” the court said.

And interlibrary loan services can be burdensome or costly, it said.

BraunHagey & Borden LLP and Wittliff Cutter PLLC represent the library patrons. Jonathan F. Mitchell of Austin, Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC, and the Llano County Attorney’s Office represent the defendants.

The case is Little v. Llano Cnty, W.D. Tex., No. 1:22-cv-00424, 3/30/23.