Federal Judge Permanently Blocks Texas Book Ratings Law, Citing First Amendment Violations
A federal judge has declared Texas House Bill 900, known as the READER Act, unconstitutional, issuing a permanent injunction against key provisions of the controversial law. The ruling, made by U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright, makes permanent a prior temporary injunction and represents a significant victory for booksellers, publishers, and free speech advocates in Texas.
The READER Act Deemed Unconstitutional
Passed in 2023, the READER Act aimed to require booksellers and publishers to rate books sold to public schools based on their sexual content, categorizing them as “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant.” Books deemed “sexually explicit” were to be removed from school libraries, while “sexually relevant” materials would require parental permission for students to access. The law also allowed the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to review and potentially override these ratings.
However, a coalition of plaintiffs, including prominent Texas bookstores like BookPeople and Blue Willow Bookshop, along with national organizations such as the American Booksellers Association and the Association of American Publishers, filed a lawsuit challenging the law. They argued that HB 900 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by compelling speech, imposing vague and overbroad terms, and acting as an unconstitutional prior restraint on expression.
In his latest ruling, Judge Albright agreed with the plaintiffs, permanently blocking the sections of the READER Act that would have forced vendors to assign content ratings to books. This decision follows previous rulings from a lower court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had both previously found the law’s rating requirements problematic.
First Amendment Battlegrounds
The core of the legal challenge revolved around the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Plaintiffs argued that the READER Act unconstitutionally compelled them to express the state’s preferred message about books, forcing them to label content in ways they might not agree with or that are subjectively determined. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its previous rulings, had affirmed that these mandatory ratings were not factual or uncontroversial, unlike neutral disclosures such as nutrition labels, but rather involved subjective analysis and expression of opinion. The court rejected the state’s argument that the ratings constituted “government speech,” concluding they represented the vendors’ speech.
Furthermore, the law’s definitions of “sexually explicit” and “sexually relevant” were widely criticized as vague and impossible to implement consistently. This vagueness, coupled with the threat of being banned from doing business with Texas public schools for non-compliance, created an environment of uncertainty and potential censorship.
Background and Legislative Intent
Supporters of HB 900 argued that the law was necessary to protect children from inappropriate material in school libraries and to empower parents in their children’s education. State legislators who championed the bill, such as State Rep. Jared Patterson, emphasized the goal of ensuring that school library materials were educational and age-appropriate.
The passage of HB 900 occurred amidst a broader national trend of increased scrutiny and challenges to books in school libraries, often focusing on themes of race, gender, and sexuality. However, critics contended that the READER Act’s mandatory rating system went too far, imposing an undue burden on booksellers and potentially chilling the availability of diverse literature for students.
Implications and Future Outlook
The permanent injunction against the book rating provisions is a significant win for literary freedom. Laura Lee Prather, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, stated that the READER Act would have imposed “impossible obligations on booksellers and limited access to literature, including classic works, for students across Texas.” This ruling is seen as reaffirming the First Amendment rights of booksellers and publishers to engage in commerce without being coerced into subjective content evaluations by the state.
While the provisions requiring book vendors to rate materials have been permanently blocked, other aspects of HB 900, such as the Texas State Library and Archives Commission’s authority to create new library collection standards, may still be in effect. However, the core mechanism intended to police book content – the mandatory vendor ratings – has been definitively struck down by the federal courts.
The legal battle over HB 900 highlights the ongoing tension between state efforts to regulate content in schools and constitutional protections for speech and expression. This news is a key development in the national conversation surrounding book challenges and censorship in educational settings, marking a clear stance against compelled speech and vague regulatory schemes. This ruling is a featured development in Texas and national news.
