Case v. Unified School District No. 233
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11020, 895 F.Supp. 1463, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1172 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district's decision to remove a book from its school libraries violates the First Amendment if the decisive factor in the decision was the officials' intent to deny students access to ideas with which they disagreed, rather than for reasons of educational suitability or vulgarity.
Facts:
- In August 1993, Robert Birle, on behalf of an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, offered to donate the book 'Annie on My Mind', a novel about a romantic relationship between two high school girls, to the Olathe School District.
- Following the donation offer, school officials discovered that copies of 'Annie on My Mind' were already on the shelves and available to students in five of the District's high school and junior high libraries.
- The District's librarians reviewed the book and unanimously concluded that it was appropriate and suitable for high school students and should remain in the library system.
- Despite the librarians' favorable review, on December 14, 1993, Superintendent Dr. Ron Wimmer issued a press release announcing that existing copies of 'Annie on My Mind' would be removed from the libraries and made unavailable for student use.
- On January 6, 1994, the Olathe School District Board of Education voted 4-2 to support Dr. Wimmer's action, thereby officially removing the book from all District libraries.
- Following the removal, student Amanda Greb sought to distribute fliers about the decision, and Principal Dr. Lowell Ghosey met with her multiple times to review and discuss the content of the fliers before their distribution.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a group of students, former students, parents, and a teacher, filed a lawsuit against the Unified School District No. 233, its Superintendent, and a high school Principal in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Kansas Constitution arising from the removal of the book 'Annie on My Mind' and the pre-distribution review of student fliers.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case.
- The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district's removal of a book from its libraries violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments if the removal is motivated by the school officials' disapproval of the ideas contained within the book?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Bebber, Chief Judge
The court cannot yet answer whether the removal violates the First Amendment because the school officials' motivation, which is the key constitutional question, remains a disputed issue of fact that must be determined at trial. Citing the plurality opinion in Board of Education v. Pico, the court established that a school board's removal of a library book is unconstitutional if officials 'intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which [the officials] disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor.' The court rejected the district's argument to apply the more deferential standard from Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, distinguishing Hazelwood as a case concerning school-sponsored curriculum, whereas Pico appropriately governs the distinct context of a school library, which serves as a place for voluntary inquiry. Because deposition testimony revealed a genuine factual dispute regarding the intent of Dr. Wimmer and the board members, summary judgment for either party is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Board of Education v. Pico plurality opinion as the governing standard for school library book removal cases within this jurisdiction. It highlights that the subjective motivation of school officials is the central factual inquiry, making such cases difficult to resolve at the summary judgment stage. By clearly distinguishing the library context of Pico from the curricular context of Hazelwood, the court reinforces the legal principle that school libraries occupy a special role as places for voluntary inquiry, affording students broader First Amendment protections than in the classroom. The ruling signals to school districts that ideologically-driven book removals will face significant constitutional scrutiny and that their official motivations will be subject to examination at trial.
