The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction against Texas’s controversial book rating law, HB 900, also known as the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources Act (READER). The law, which faced opposition from a coalition of booksellers and publishers, requires sexual-content ratings for all library materials in Texas public schools.
Fifth Circuit Court rules against Texas book rating law
The unanimous decision by the three-judge appeals panel, including US Circuit Judge Don Willett, appointed by former President Trump, found that the plaintiffs — including two Texas bookstores, three national trade associations representing booksellers, publishers, and authors, and a legal defence fund — are “likely to succeed” on their claims that the law violates their First Amendment rights. It was signed into law by the Governor of Texas and was set to take effect on September 1, 2023.
“Indeed, the Supreme Court has said that ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’ Because READER threatens Plaintiffs’ right to be free from compelled speech, Plaintiffs have shown an irreparable injury.”
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Read: Texas fights to enact parts of controversial book rating law
Judge Willett’s opinion also emphasised the narrow focus of the case: “Are Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights? Controlling precedent suggests the answer is yes,” The court affirmed the preliminary injunction against Commissioner Morath, vacated the injunction against Chairs Wong and Ellis, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the suit against them.
First Amendment at the forefront of landmark legal decision
Texas authorities defended the law, arguing its aim to protect children and denying that it infringes on free speech. However, the court rejected these arguments, maintaining that “the ratings are the vendor’s speech, not the government’s,” and thus mandating these ratings violates freedom of speech. The court also highlighted that “compliance costs alone” could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, outweighing any public interest in enforcing a regulation that violates federal law.
“The State and the public won’t be injured by an injunction of a statute that likely violates the First Amendment,” the court concluded in its filing.
This ruling is a part of a broader national debate over the regulation of educational materials, with several GOP-controlled states having passed similar laws. These laws have sparked controversy, particularly around their restrictions on books dealing with race, sex, or LGBTQ issues. Hence, the Fifth Circuit’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over free speech and educational content in America.