Case v. Unified School District No. 233
908 F. Supp. 864, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18005, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1161 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school board's removal of a book from school libraries violates the First Amendment if the decisive factor in the decision was the board members' intent to deny students access to ideas with which they disagree. School boards may not remove books simply because they dislike the ideas contained in them and seek to prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of opinion.
Facts:
- The book 'Annie on My Mind,' a novel about a romantic relationship between two teenage girls, had been on the Olathe School District library shelves for several years.
- In 1993, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, Project 21, donated additional copies of the book to the district, which generated media attention and public controversy.
- The district's professional media specialists (librarians) reviewed the book, found it to have literary merit and to be appropriate for students, and recommended keeping it in the libraries.
- Citing the public "turmoil" and controversy rather than the book's content, Superintendent Dr. Ron Wimmer ordered all copies of 'Annie on My Mind' removed from the district's libraries.
- The Board of Education, ignoring its own established procedures for reconsidering library materials, held a meeting and voted 4-2 to uphold the Superintendent's removal decision.
- The board members who voted for removal testified that their motivation was that the book "glorified the gay lifestyle," which they personally viewed as immoral, unhealthy, a mental disorder, and contrary to community moral standards.
Procedural Posture:
- Stevana Case and other students, parents, and a teacher sued the Unified School District No. 233, its Board of Education, and its Superintendent in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The plaintiffs alleged the removal of the book 'Annie on My Mind' violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Kansas Constitution.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction to have the book returned to the libraries and a declaration that its removal was unconstitutional.
- The case proceeded to a trial before the court, also known as a bench trial.
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 board's decision to remove a book from its school libraries violate the First Amendment when the removal is motivated by the board members' personal disapproval of the ideas and lifestyle portrayed in the book?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Bebber
Yes, the school board's decision to remove the book violates the First Amendment. A school board may not remove books from library shelves simply because its members dislike the ideas contained within them. Applying the standard from the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Board of Educ. v. Pico, the court found that the board's stated reason for removal—that the book was "educationally unsuitable"—was a pretext for impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The actual and decisive motivation, as evidenced by the board members' own testimony and their blatant disregard for established district procedures, was their personal, moral, and religious opposition to the book's subject matter. This attempt to 'prescribe what shall be orthodox' in matters of opinion is unconstitutional in the voluntary environment of a school library, where students have a right to freely explore diverse topics.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant district-level application of the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Board of Educ. v. Pico, reinforcing that a school board's discretion over library content is not absolute. The case demonstrates that courts will closely scrutinize the "actual motivation" behind book removals, and that procedural irregularities, such as ignoring established policies, serve as powerful evidence of an unconstitutional intent to suppress disfavored ideas. It solidifies the principle that a board's desire to avoid controversy or to transmit a particular moral or religious viewpoint is not a constitutionally permissible reason for removing a book from a school library.
