Supreme Court Declines to Hear Texas Library Book Removal Case

Thu Dec 11 2025 22:49:03 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to hear a significant free speech case from Texas involving the removal of books from public libraries, prompting criticism from free speech advocates.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal regarding a Texas case that allowed local officials to remove certain books from public library circulation, igniting controversy among free speech advocates. The decision not to review the case follows a series of incidents in which books addressing race, gender, and humor were ordered removed by the Llano County library commission, leading to a lawsuit by local residents. Critics argue that this sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and ideological control over public reading materials.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal on a Texas free speech case that allowed local officials to remove books deemed objectionable from public libraries.

The case stemmed from a 2022 lawsuit by a group of residents in rural Llano County over the removal from the public library of more than a dozen books dealing with sex, race, and gender themes, as well as humorously touching on topics like flatulence.

A lower federal appeals court had ruled that removing the books did not violate Constitutional free speech protections.

The case had been closely watched by publishers and librarians across the country and the Supreme Court’s decision not to consider it has been criticized by free speech rights groups. Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at PEN America remarked, Leaving the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in place erodes the most elemental principles of free speech and allows state and local governments to exert ideological control over the people with impunity. The government has no place telling people what they can and cannot read.

Sam Helmick, president of the American Library Association, expressed that the Supreme Court’s decision threatens to transform government libraries into centers for indoctrination instead of protecting them as centers of open inquiry, thereby undermining the First Amendment right to read unfettered by viewpoint-based censorship.

The Texas case began when residents asked the county library commission to remove a group of books from circulation. The local commission ordered librarians to comply, leading to a separate group of residents suing to keep the books on the shelves. Titles ordered removed included Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent by Isabel Wilkerson, among others, covering serious and humorous topics alike.

The county at one point briefly considered closing its public libraries rather than return the books to the shelves after the ruling by a federal judge ordering some books to be restored, which was later overturned by the appeals court. The court commented that the decision to remove a book does not equate to a book ban, stating, If a disappointed patron can’t find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore or borrow it from a friend. Llano County Judge Ron Cunningham did not immediately respond to requests for comment.