Estimated Time to Read: 9 minutes
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Little v. Llano County, allowing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ sweeping decision to stand. The Fifth Circuit concluded that when a public library selects or removes books from its shelves, it is engaged in government speech rather than regulating private speech.
Because the Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of others but does not restrict how the government expresses its own views, the court held that removing books from a government-run library does not violate the First Amendment.
This conclusion represents a major shift in First Amendment doctrine for libraries. By treating book selection as government expression rather than a public forum activity, the Fifth Circuit overturned its own longstanding precedent and significantly expanded the discretion of public library systems in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
How the Llano Case Reached This Point
The dispute began in Llano County, where officials removed 17 books from the library system after receiving citizen complaints. The books covered topics ranging from children’s potty humor to puberty, sexuality, gender identity, and the history of the Ku Klux Klan.
Seven library patrons sued, arguing that the removals violated their First Amendment right to receive information. A federal district court agreed and ordered the books restored to the shelves.
But on rehearing, the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision entirely. The court rejected the argument that library patrons have a judicially enforceable right to receive specific books at taxpayer expense. It likened libraries to museums that choose which works to display, and by framing collection decisions as government speech, it held that such decisions fall outside the Free Speech Clause altogether.
This marks a profound doctrinal realignment, one that will likely drive future litigation and legislative action across the country.
Texas Reactions and the Growing Policy Debate
Civil liberties organizations, publishers, and authors criticized the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning, arguing that it opens the door to political viewpoint suppression in publicly funded spaces.
Others welcomed the decision. Texas State Representative Daniel Alders (R-Tyler) noted that the ruling supports the authority of municipal libraries to maintain age-appropriate standards and to relocate explicit materials out of children’s sections. Alders said the decision provides clarity for policymakers pursuing similar protections in the upcoming legislative session.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today confirms what we already know: it is entirely legal and fitting for public libraries to protect our children by keeping explicit books out of the kids’ section — if not the library altogether.”
“My bill simply said that sexually explicit materials should not be placed where children browse. Today’s decision shows this is well within the law and gives Texas a clear path to pass HB 3225 or similar legislation in the 90th Legislative Session. In the meantime, it should also give public libraries complete confidence that it is well within their legal right to clean up their library catalogs now. Parents deserve confidence that our taxpayer-funded libraries are safe for their children.”
Source: Texas State Rep. Daniel Alders (R-Tyler), Twitter/X Post 12.8.2025
The decision immediately became part of a larger conversation about state and local authority over library content.
Additional Texas Context
While the Llano ruling is the central legal development, several recent policy efforts provide important background. These efforts do not change the Llano analysis, but they help explain why the ruling matters and how it fits into the broader struggle over library standards.
HB 3225 and Municipal Library Governance
House Bill 3225 (HB 3225) emerged during the 89th Legislative Session as one of the most direct attempts to establish statewide standards for municipal public libraries. Authored by Alders, the bill required libraries operated by cities to relocate sexually explicit materials out of children’s sections and adopt clear, uniform processes for reviewing content. Importantly, HB 3225 did not ban any books, restrict adult access, or involve private vendors. Instead, it relied solely on municipal authority over public property and used well-defined standards to ensure minors were not exposed to explicit content.
The bill passed the Texas House with Republican and some bipartisan support, but the Senate did not schedule it before key session deadlines. Had it passed, HB 3225 would have been one of the first statewide municipal library standards of its kind in Texas.
Its relevance to the Llano ruling is straightforward. The Fifth Circuit confirmed that public library catalog decisions fall squarely within government speech, which means legislation like HB 3225 operates comfortably within constitutional boundaries. The court’s ruling strengthens the legal footing for future attempts to revisit HB 3225 or similar proposals.
SB 13 and Public School Library Restructuring
Senate Bill 13 (SB 13), authored by State Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney), represents a comprehensive overhaul of school library governance rather than municipal library governance. While it passed earlier in 2025, its significance has grown in the aftermath of both the Llano ruling and the READER Act litigation.
SB 13 expanded parental rights, required transparency in school library catalogs, created opt-out mechanisms for parents, and established Local School Library Advisory Councils that place parents at the center of school library oversight. The law also adopted definitions for harmful, indecent, and profane content and introduced detailed procedures for cataloging, challenging, and acquiring school library materials.
Unlike HB 3225, which dealt with municipal libraries, SB 13 overlays substantial procedural and administrative requirements onto school districts. These include public posting of new acquisitions, mandatory council meetings, public recording requirements, and preemptive restrictions on access to challenged materials.
SB 13 is relevant to the Llano ruling because it shows how the Legislature has attempted to regulate school library content in ways that differ from municipal library governance. While Llano clarifies that governments have broad authority to curate their own collections, SB 13 illustrates how easily that authority can expand into more complex regulatory structures that raise separate questions about administrative burden, subjective standards, and the limits of parental versus institutional control.
The READER Act Injunction and Constitutional Limits
The Texas READER Act, authored by State Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco) was passed in 2023 with the goal of preventing sexually explicit materials from entering public school libraries. Unlike HB 3225 and SB 13, which regulate government institutions directly, the READER Act attempted to control public school library content by imposing obligations on private book vendors. Vendors were required to rate every book ever sold to schools, accept the Texas Education Agency’s re-rating decisions, and publicly adopt those ratings as their own.
On October 21, 2025, Judge Alan Albright permanently enjoined the law. He concluded that the READER Act violated the First Amendment in three critical ways:
- It compelled private vendors to speak by forcing them to adopt ratings they did not create,
- It relied on vague, undefined standards that made compliance subjective, and
- It functioned as a prior restraint by prohibiting the sale of certain books with no avenue for timely judicial review.
The injunction does not alter the reasoning in Llano but fills in the other side of the constitutional boundary. Llano confirms that the government may control its own library collections. The READER ruling confirms that the government may not force private parties to adopt the government’s message or rating system. Together, the two decisions define a clear constitutional perimeter for library policy in Texas:
- Governments may manage their own catalogs
- Governments must avoid compelling private speech
- Legislation must rely on objective, clearly defined standards.
TPR’s Principles and the Llano Ruling
Texas Policy Research (TPR) evaluates legislation and court decisions through five guiding principles: individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise, private property rights, and limited government. Applying these principles consistently provides a clear and principled view of the Llano ruling and the policy environment surrounding it.
The Llano decision clarified an essential constitutional boundary. Government entities may control their own library collections because these decisions constitute government speech. The Constitution restricts the government from suppressing the speech of private individuals, but it does not require the government to provide specific books in publicly funded libraries. This supports a core tenet of limited government: public institutions must be restrained in regulating others but retain autonomy over their own assets and messages.
HB 3225 aligned with this principle. TPR supported HB 3225 because it exercised municipal authority in a narrow and targeted manner. The bill protected minors while preserving unrestricted access for adults, avoided compelled speech, and did not expand bureaucracy. HB 3225 demonstrated how government can act within its proper role to ensure appropriate standards in public spaces without exceeding constitutional limits.
SB 13 illustrated the risks that arise when legislation drifts beyond those limits. While the bill sought to empower parents and increase transparency, TPR opposed it unless amended because it expanded administrative structures, relied on subjective content definitions, and imposed broad procedural burdens. Protecting minors is essential, but government action must be clear, limited, and constitutionally grounded. Government should not grow faster than the problem it seeks to solve.
The READER Act injunction reinforces the same principle from the opposite direction. Judge Alan Albright held that the state cannot compel private vendors to adopt government classifications or speak on the state’s behalf. While the government may regulate its own collections, it cannot outsource its authority to private actors or rely on vague standards that impede lawful expression.
Taken together, the Llano ruling, HB 3225, SB 13, and the READER Act injunction define the constitutional perimeter for library policy in Texas. Government may manage its own collections, but it must not compel private speech or create sprawling systems that lack clarity and restraint. The path forward requires precision, discipline, and a firm commitment to limited governance.
Texas Policy Research remains committed to supporting policies that protect children, empower parents, and uphold the constitutional boundaries that preserve a free and self-governing society.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
