Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County; Library Journal, December 16, 2025

Lisa Peet, Library Journal; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County

 "THE LONG GAME

While this is a disheartening development for the plaintiffs, Dan Novack, VP and Associate General Counsel at PRH, feels that a favorable precedent could still be set at the Supreme Court level. PRH has several cases in play, including Penguin Random House LLC v. Robbins, challenging Iowa’s SF496 in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson , fighting Florida’s HB 1069 in the Eleventh Circuit. Both are scheduled to be heard in early 2026.

Given that it only takes about one percent of the cases put forward to it every year, “when there is a traffic jam of cases, as there is in this emerging area of law, it’s really not uncommon for the Supreme Court to sit back and let it play out,” Novack told LJ. If the other cases are also decided against the freedom to read, the Supreme Court may not see the need to step in. But if rulings are split, it may choose to take on one of the cases.

If the Supreme Court had taken Little v. Llano, it could have resulted in a positive ruling coming sooner. But “I’m taking the longer view that it’s good to be presenting more options to the Court, and if they were to take a Penguin Random House case, I feel very strong about the merits of those cases,” said Novack.

Even Llano County’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, in his brief in opposition to the writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit ruling, stated that “The Court should wait and allow these [circuit] courts to weigh in on whether and how the Speech Clause applies to library-book removals before jumping in to resolve this issue.”

Novack acknowledges that this decision is a hard one for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. “Something went very wrong in the Fifth Circuit,” he said. But PRH and its council are committed to a multi-year fight that could potentially reach the Supreme Court and set precedent for the right to read throughout the United States.

“Although our lawsuit has come to a disappointing end,” Leila Green Little, lead plaintiff in the case, told LJ, “I am encouraged by the many people across the country who continue our fight in the courtrooms, their local libraries, and our state and federal legislative chambers.”"

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Texas Library Case: List of Banned Books; Newsweek, December 8, 2025

Dan Gooding and Gabe Whisnant , Newsweek; Supreme Court Won’t Hear Texas Library Case: List of Banned Books

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a Texas county’s removal of 17 books from its public libraries, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed the purge. 

The books targeted by officials span topics including sexuality, gender identity, racism and even juvenile humor.

Residents who sued argued the removals violated their First Amendment right to receive information, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that claim. 

The Supreme Court’s decision means the ruling now applies across Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi."

Appeals Court Ruling Raises Bar for Challenging School Book Bans; EducationWeek, May 28, 2025

Mark Walsh , EducationWeek; Appeals Court Ruling Raises Bar for Challenging School Book Bans

[Kip Currier: Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan's majority opinion statements that "“Removing a library book does not deny anyone the chance to read it...“The book has not been ‘banned.’ …People who want the book can buy it or borrow it from somewhere else.” are disingenuous and elitist. The reality is that the book has been made inaccessible.

The chief rationale for having a school library is to enable students to be able to access information and materials like books. Taxpayer monies support the acquisition of materials for school libraries. So requiring a student and their family to have to resort to buying a book that the school library would arguably be likely to have is inequitable. A hypothetical student's family's tax dollars support the purchase of school library books. However, the state's stance requires that family (or any other family!) to elect to spend additional monies on a book that their child may want to read or forego access to that book. The other option, as Judge Duncan notes, is to try to borrow that book from somewhere else, which in and of itself raises obstacles. Either way, these are unethical barriers to information that only some students are required to navigate, while other students have unfettered access to state-favored resources. That's censorship and treats some people disparately from others.

The court's rationale is also inherently problematic and potentially unconstitutional as viewpoint discrimination because the court's position prioritizes the views of some books over others. It is acknowledged that no library is able to purchase and provide access to every book. Yet, this policy favors some students and families over others by the nature of the resources that tend to be removed under bans of this nature, i.e books that include references to issues and characters of color or that are LGBTQ+-related.]

[Excerpt]

"The court’s 100-page decision in Little v. Llano Countydevotes much discussion to school library book challenges. Notably, the court expressly overruled its own 1995 precedent that suggested students could challenge the removal of books in their schools.

“Removing a library book does not deny anyone the chance to read it,” says the majority opinion by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, an appointee of President Donald Trump. “The book has not been ‘banned.’ … People who want the book can buy it or borrow it from somewhere else.”

The majority also rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, which stemmed from a New York state school district’s 1976 removal of books from school libraries including Black Boy by Richard Wright, Soul On Ice by Eldridge Cleaver, and Go Ask Alice by an anonymous author."

Ridgeland Mayor Demands LGBTQ+ Book Purge, Threatens Library Funding; Mississippi Free Press, January 25, 2022

Nick Judin Mississippi Free Press; Ridgeland Mayor Demands LGBTQ+ Book Purge, Threatens Library Funding

"Ridgeland Mayor Gene McGee is withholding $110,000 of funding from the Madison County Library System allegedly on the basis of his personal religious beliefs, with library officials stating that he has demanded that the system initiate a purge of LGBTQ+ books before his office releases the money.

Tonja Johnson, executive director for the Madison County Library System, told the Mississippi Free Press in an afternoon interview that she first reached out to Mayor McGee after failing to receive the City of Ridgeland’s first quarterly payment of 2022.

Johnson said the mayor informed her that no payment was forthcoming. “He explained his opposition to what he called ‘homosexual materials’ in the library, that it went against his Christian beliefs, and that he would not release the money as the long as the materials were there,” the library director said.

The director then explained to the mayor that the library system, as a public entity, was not a religious institution. “I explained that we are a public library and we serve the entire community. I told him our collection reflects the diversity of our community,” Johnson said."

Leading businesses take stand against states' new anti-LGBT laws; Guardian, 4/10/16

Edward Helmore and Matt Kessler, Guardian; Leading businesses take stand against states' new anti-LGBT laws:

"Local business leaders and educators warned that the legislation could harm the state’s competitiveness in attracting business and investment. “These assholes talk about gay women and gay men using the exact same language they were using in the 50s and 60s for segregationist purposes,” said the award-winning chef John Currence, owner of several restaurants in Oxford, Mississippi. He warned that Mississippi’s HB1523, known as the Religious Liberty Accommodation Act, would put businesses off from setting up in the state.

“When people see this kind of regressive social politics going on, it affects the quality of life”, he said. The new laws, he added, “could not be any more vile or regressive”.

Ivo Kamps, a University of Mississippi English professor, warned the law “will have a chilling effect on our ability to recruit students and faculty”, despite the university chancellor’s assurance that nothing would change...

Academics say the current legislation, combined with the Citizens United bill of 2010 that in effect gave corporations the rights of citizens, has placed corporations at the forefront of efforts to contain the spread of ideologically extreme legislation."