The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request for another hearing on Tuesday in a case related to the READER Act brought by book vendors. This decision upheld a previous ruling by a panel and maintained a temporary ban on enforcing the act, which had been granted by the district court.
The ongoing story about the READER Act, also known as HB 900, a law passed by the 88th Texas Legislature to oversee collections in public school libraries, might now head to the U.S. Supreme Court if its author, Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco), has his way.
The law requires bookstores to assess the appropriateness of their books for children based on their content. Although the Texas Education Agency (TEA) describes this as a simple administrative task, several bookstores and publishers filed took legal action against TEA, the State Board of Education (SBOE), and the Texas State Library and Archives Commission on constitutional grounds.
After filing their lawsuit against the various state entities, plaintiffs sought a court order to stop the law from being enforced while their case was being considered, claiming that the READER Act violates their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted their request for a temporary ban.
Defendants then appealed the district court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to issue the temporary ban because, in their view, the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, and the State and the public won’t be harmed by a ban on a law that likely violates the First Amendment.”
Following the panel’s decision, the defendants requested a reconsideration of the issue by the full court, known as a hearing en banc. According to an order issued on April 16, the appeals court judges narrowly voted against a hearing en banc — with eight in favor and nine against — effectively upholding the previous decision of the three-judge panel.
In response to the appeals court’s decision to “[side] with porn-pushing book vendors over Texas kids,” Patterson wrote a strong statement and urged Attorney General Ken Paxton to file an appeal.
“Any judge claiming the State of Texas cannot require government vendors to ensure they don’t send sexually explicit content to children in our schools is just plain wrong,” Patterson wrote.
Several judges from the Fifth Circuit joined a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the panel’s decision and stating that the READER Act “simply requires any vendor who wants to sell books to public schools to answer certain questions before the sale.”
“In short: The business can decline to respond, and the consumer can decline to purchase. That’s not compelled speech — that’s consumer speech,” the dissent reads.
The debates about the READER Act have caused divisions in some districts in the state.
Those who oppose the READER Act often compare it to censorship and book burnings seen in Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow era. For example, the Harris County Commissioners Court transformed the Harris County Public Library system into a “book sanctuary” to safeguard Texans’ “freedom to read,” as covered by The Dallas Express.
Supporters of the READER Act have cited the case of supposedly inappropriate books being discovered in library collections, like at Dallas ISD, as evidence that children should be covered by such laws.
However, the READER Act remains partly in place, as the SBOE implemented new compulsory standards last December that reflect the provisions in it, as covered by The Dallas Express. The 10 rules involve significant supervision by local school boards and parents, while offering guidance for identifying content that is relevant to education and suitable for different age groups.
