No First Amendment Right to Receive Information in Public Library Collections: Reinforcing Government Speech Immunity

Introduction

Little v. Llano County is a 2025 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A group of library patrons sued Llano County officials over the removal of seventeen books from the county’s three‐branch public library system in Texas. Plaintiffs alleged that the removals—prompted by complaints about sexual and racial themes—violated their First Amendment “right to receive information.” The district court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the books returned to the shelves. A divided Fifth Circuit panel affirmed in part, but the en banc court reversed, dismissing the Free Speech claims. In so doing, the court overruled Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, rejected a free‐speech‐based right to demand that libraries retain challenged titles, and held that library collection decisions are government speech immune from First Amendment challenge.

Summary of the Judgment

The en banc Fifth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction and rendered judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Free Speech claims.
The court held that public‐library patrons cannot invoke a First Amendment “right to receive information” to challenge a library’s decision to remove books or to decline to purchase them in the first instance.
Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board (5th Cir. 1995) was overruled as based on a mistaken reading of Supreme Court precedent.
The court ruled that public library collection and removal decisions constitute government speech and thus lie beyond the reach of Free Speech Clause challenges.
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Martin v. City of Struthers (1943): Recognized negative First Amendment rights to distribute and receive private speech.
Thomas v. Collins (1945) and Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965): Protected the right to receive political speech.
Stanley v. Georgia (1969): Invalidated criminal punishment for private possession of allegedly obscene speech.
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972): Held that the right to receive information does not extend to demanding that the government invite every speaker.
Board of Education v. Pico (1982): Plurality and concurring opinions held that school‐library book removal motivated solely by a desire to suppress ideas violated the First Amendment; judgment remanded for fact‐finding on officials’ motivations.
Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Commission (Former 5th Cir. 1982): Held that Pico addressed a different factual context and did not present binding First Amendment principles for public‐television scheduling.
Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board (1995): Applied Pico to public school libraries; overruled en banc as relying on a “mistaken reading” of Supreme Court law.
United States v. American Library Association (2003, plurality): Described library collection decisions as “editorial discretion” akin to museum curation or museum speech.
PETA v. Gittens (D.C. Cir. 2005): Held that city art‐program curation of privately donated sculptures is government speech; applied the same rationale to library collections.
Ark. Educational Television Commission v. Forbes (1998) and Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998): Recognized government discretion in expressive‐content funding decisions.
Moody v. NetChoice (2024): Confirmed that curating compilations of third‐party speech is expressive activity.
Sutliffe v. Epping School District (1st Cir. 2009) and Ill. Dunesland Pres. Society v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources (7th Cir. 2009): Held that selecting hyperlinks and pamphlets for government‐run sites and racks is government speech.

Legal Reasoning

No right to receive government‐provided library books.
- All pre‐Pico cases protect the right to receive private speech without government interference.
- Pico and Campbell extended this principle only to school library removals, but Pico’s splintered opinions never established a binding nationwide rule, and a majority of the Justices rejected affirmatively forcing libraries to keep books on shelves.
- Permitting challenges to every library removal would compel challenges to every library purchase, impose unworkable motive inquiries, and undermine ordinary collection‐management practices.
Government‐speech doctrine bars Free Speech challenges to library curation.
- Curating and presenting a collection of third‐party works—books, sculptures, editorials—is expressive activity of the speaker, whether private or governmental (Moody, Summum, PETA).
- Public‐library decisions about which books to include or exclude parallel a museum’s selection of exhibited works; courts have long held that such selection constitutes government speech (Summum, ALA, Forbes, PETA).
- Public fora analysis does not apply. Library shelves are not “sidewalks” or “bulletin boards”; they are curated repositories of government‐selected material.
- The Supreme Court’s “government speech” factors (Shurtleff) —history of public‐library curation, public perception of librarian authority, and extensive governmental control—confirm that libraries speak when selecting books.

Impact

Library patrons may no longer use the First Amendment to challenge a public library’s purchase, retention, or removal of books.
Campbell (1995) is overruled: students and the public alike have no affirmative First Amendment right to compel libraries to carry or retain specific titles.
Government speech immunity extends broadly: any government body that curates third‐party speech—arts programs, public museums, educational curricula—enjoys free‐speech protection for its expressive choices.
Potentially reduces federal‐court oversight of library censorship controversies, leaving disputes to political processes, but critics warn of increased risk that local officials will suppress unpopular ideas in public collections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Right to receive information – A negative First Amendment right preventing government from stopping you from getting private speech, e.g., political leaflets, books in your hands—but does not require government to provide you any particular materials.
Government speech – When a government entity chooses which third‐party works to display or distribute (museums, parades, libraries), the choice itself is the government’s own speech and is not subject to the Free Speech Clause.
Public forum – Government property dedicated to public expression (parks, streets), where content or viewpoint discrimination is strictly limited. Library shelves are instead a curated government speech venue, not a public forum.
Campbell overruled – Campbell had applied a right‐to‐receive analysis to public school libraries; it is no longer good law in the Fifth Circuit.

Conclusion

Little v. Llano County establishes two controlling principles for the Fifth Circuit. First, there is no First Amendment “right to receive information” from taxpayer-funded libraries to challenge book removals or procurement decisions. Second, library collection and removal decisions constitute government speech, immune from Free Speech Clause scrutiny. Public libraries remain free to curate their holdings for quality, age-appropriateness, condition, and educational suitability—but they may no longer be forced by a court to carry or retain any particular title to satisfy a viewer’s subjective demands.