Free Speech issue image

Little v. Llano County

Location: Texas
Status: Ongoing
Last Update: September 10, 2024

What's at Stake

On September 10, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to protect the public’s right to access books and ideas at public libraries free from government censorship.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in Little v. Llano County, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to recognize that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from removing books from public libraries in an effort to suppress particular viewpoints or to impose a political orthodoxy.

The case revolves around Llano County officials’ unlawful removal of 17 books from their public library system. In August 2021, local residents asked the Llano County library commissioner to remove certain children’s books they viewed as “obscene” and “pornographic” from the library’s shelves. These included various kids’ books about “butts and farts,” as well as award-winning books by acclaimed authors, like Maurice Sendak’s “In the Night Kitchen,” “Caste” by Isabel Wilkerson, and Robie H. Harris’ “It’s Perfectly Normal.” Not only did the commissioner order the librarians to comply, but in January 2022, the existing library board was dissolved, a new board with the residents who spearheaded the book removals was appointed, and the libraries were temporarily closed to scour the shelves and remove any book the board deemed “inappropriate.”

The ACLU's brief argues that such censorship fundamentally undermines the purpose and function of public libraries, which are meant to serve as spaces for free inquiry and the exploration of diverse ideas, not exposure only to government-endorsed concepts or perspectives. The brief emphasizes that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from prescribing what is orthodox even via government programs that necessarily pick and choose among private speech. For example, a Democratic governor could not order the removal of all library books advocating ‘Republican’ ideals, nor could a predominantly Jewish city council ban all copies of the New Testament to impose a single religious view. Given this, the Court should affirm the court below and hold that government officials cannot remove books from public library shelves to prescribe what is orthodox, to aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas, or to drive an idea from the marketplace.

Support our on-going litigation and work in the courts Donate now

Learn More About the Issues in This Case