Little v. Llano County is a federal First Amendment lawsuit brought by library patrons in Llano County, Texas, after county officials pulled seventeen books from the public library system in late 2021 and early 2022. In May 2025, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, ruled that a public library’s decisions about which books to keep on its shelves are government speech, and that the First Amendment gives citizens no right to demand a library retain any particular title.1United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Little v. Llano County No. 23-50224 (En Banc) The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the patrons’ appeal in December 2025, leaving that ruling in place across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
How the Removals Started
The dispute began in late 2021, when residents complained to Llano County Judge Ron Cunningham about books they considered inappropriate in the library’s children’s section. Some complaints singled out children’s books built around bodily humor. Others targeted books dealing with racial history, gender identity, and sexual health. Rather than send the complaints through professional librarians, Judge Cunningham and members of the Commissioners Court instructed library staff to pull the books.
On December 13, 2021, the Commissioners Court approved a three-day library closure to review the catalog and flag material officials found objectionable. The county had already frozen new book purchases the month before. Library staff were later barred from library board meetings, and those meetings were eventually closed to the public. A newly formed citizen advisory board, together with county officials, drove the removal decisions based on content rather than the objective criteria (physical condition, circulation, currency of information) that professional librarians typically apply.
The Patrons’ Lawsuit
In 2022, a group of library patrons sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute allowing suits against government officials who violate constitutional rights while acting in their official capacity.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights Their core claim was viewpoint discrimination: that officials targeted these books not because they were worn out or outdated, but because officials disagreed with the ideas inside them.
The patrons anchored their theory in Board of Education v. Pico, the 1982 Supreme Court decision addressing book removals from a school library. In Pico, the Court said school boards have broad discretion over their collections but cannot exercise that discretion “in a narrowly partisan or political manner” or remove books “simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Island Trees School District v. Pico Under Pico, motivation is the test. If the decisive reason for pulling a book is a desire to suppress ideas, the removal violates the First Amendment.
The Llano patrons pointed to emails and meeting records showing that officials’ objections centered on the messages of the removed titles rather than any neutral collection criterion.
The Path Through the Courts
In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction. He found the patrons likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims and ordered the county to return all removed print books to the shelves within twenty-four hours, and to stop removing more books during the lawsuit.1United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Little v. Llano County No. 23-50224 (En Banc)
A divided three-judge Fifth Circuit panel reviewed the injunction in 2024. The panel agreed that library patrons have a First Amendment right to receive information and that a library violates that right when a removal is substantially motivated by hostility to ideas.4Justia. Little v. Llano County But the panel split on how many books qualified. Judge Wiener would have protected all seventeen. Judge Southwick concluded that nine, including the children’s humor titles like I Broke My Butt! and Larry the Farting Leprechaun, were pulled for legitimate age-appropriateness reasons rather than viewpoint hostility.5United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Little v. Llano County No. 23-50224 (Panel Opinion) The panel modified the injunction to cover eight books, including Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen, They Called Themselves the K.K.K., and In the Night Kitchen. The county sought rehearing before the full court.
What the En Banc Ruling Held
On May 23, 2025, the full Fifth Circuit reversed and dismissed the First Amendment claims. The majority held that “the First Amendment does not give the public a right to demand that government libraries provide or retain particular books.”1United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Little v. Llano County No. 23-50224 (En Banc)
The ruling rested on two doctrinal moves. First, the majority classified library collection decisions as government speech. Under the government speech doctrine, when the government itself is the speaker, it can make viewpoint-based choices without triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Applied to library shelves, that means the collection is treated as the government’s own expression rather than a forum for private speech, and curatorial choices, including removals, fall outside constitutional review.
Second, the court overruled its own 1995 decision in Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, which had allowed students to challenge book removals from school libraries. The majority called Campbell a “mistaken reading of precedent.” Removing Campbell eliminated the last foothold for library-removal claims within the Fifth Circuit.
The Dissent and the Circuit Split
Seven judges dissented. Writing for them, Judge Higginson argued the majority had discarded Pico based on decades-old dicta buried in a footnote from an unrelated case.1United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Little v. Llano County No. 23-50224 (En Banc) The dissent emphasized that the First Amendment protects a “positive right of public access to information and ideas,” and drew a practical line between never buying a book and removing one already on the shelf. As Justice Blackmun noted in his Pico concurrence, there are many innocent reasons a library might not acquire a title, but far fewer legitimate reasons to purge one already in the collection. That asymmetry, the dissent argued, is precisely where courts should look for political motivation.
The dissenters also objected that no court anywhere had previously treated library removals as government speech, and warned the majority’s rule would give officials an unreviewable power to purge collections based on ideology.
That disagreement mirrors a broader split. Roughly a year before the en banc ruling, the Eighth Circuit held in a separate case that public school library collection decisions are not protected government speech. Two federal circuits now take opposite positions on the same constitutional question.
Supreme Court Denial
The patrons filed a petition for certiorari in September 2025 (Docket No. 25-284). On December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the petition without comment. The Fifth Circuit’s en banc ruling now stands as binding law in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It is not a nationwide precedent, but within those three states it gives officials substantially broader authority to remove library books without facing First Amendment liability. The cert denial is notable given the open circuit split, and the Court could still take up the question in a future case.
What the Case Means for Library Patrons
Little v. Llano County is the first federal appeals court decision to treat public library book removals as government speech shielded from First Amendment review. Inside the Fifth Circuit, that framing gives elected officials and library boards wide latitude to pull books for any reason, including disagreement with their content. Before this ruling, officials at least faced the possibility a court would examine their motives under Pico. That inquiry is now off the table in the circuit. A county commissioner who openly states a book is being removed because of its political message faces no greater legal exposure than one who removes a water-damaged paperback.
None of the seventeen removed books are subject to a court order requiring their return; whether they go back on the shelves is now entirely up to the county. For library patrons in the Fifth Circuit who want to challenge politically motivated removals, the practical remedies are political rather than legal: public meetings, elections, and organized pressure on the officials who make collection decisions. Patrons outside the Fifth Circuit still operate under different rules, and the constitutional question may reach the Supreme Court again if another suitable case arrives.