Counts v. Cedarville School District
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9533, 295 F. Supp. 2d 996, 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2590 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school board's decision to restrict student access to library books violates the First Amendment if the decision is motivated by a disagreement with the ideas contained within the books and is not justified by a specific showing that the books would cause a material and substantial disruption to the school environment.
Facts:
- In November 2001, Angie Haney, a parent, and Mark Hodges, a school board member and her pastor, expressed concern that the Harry Potter book series was in the Cedarville School District libraries.
- Following school policy, Haney submitted a Reconsideration Request Form asking that 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' be withdrawn from all students.
- The district convened a Library Committee, composed of administrators, librarians, teachers, parents, and students, to review the request.
- The Library Committee unanimously voted to keep the book in general circulation without any restrictions.
- Despite the committee's recommendation, the Cedarville School Board voted 3-2 to restrict access to all books in the Harry Potter series.
- The three board members who voted for the restriction stated their motivations were concern that the books promoted disobedience and disrespect for authority, and that they dealt with 'witchcraft' and 'the occult'.
- As a result of the vote, the books were removed from general circulation and placed where students could only check them out after providing a signed parental permission slip.
- Dakota Counts, a student in the district, had permission from her parents to check out the books but joined the lawsuit challenging the restriction.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy Ray Counts and Mary Nell Counts, on behalf of their minor child Dakota Counts, filed a lawsuit against the Cedarville School District in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
- The plaintiffs alleged the district's restricted access policy for the Harry Potter books violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor without a full trial.
- The defendant, Cedarville School District, filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.
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 policy requiring parental permission for students to check out specific library books, when motivated by the board's disagreement with the books' ideas, violate a student's First Amendment right to receive information?
Opinions:
Majority - Hendren
Yes, a school board's policy requiring parental permission to check out specific library books violates a student's First Amendment right to receive information when the policy is motivated by the board's disagreement with the books' ideas. First, the court held that student Dakota Counts had standing to sue. Even though her parents gave her permission, the requirement itself constitutes a burden on her First Amendment rights by 'stigmatizing' the books and creating procedural hurdles to access them. The court reasoned that the loss of First Amendment rights, even minimally, is a cognizable injury, and access in another forum (like at home) does not negate the abridgment of rights in the school library. On the merits, the court found the board's justifications for the restriction to be unconstitutional. The board's first reason, fear of promoting disobedience, was rejected under the 'Tinker' standard because it was based on 'undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance,' not on any specific evidence of actual or likely 'material and substantial interference' with school discipline. The board's second reason, disagreement with the books' themes of 'witchcraft' and 'the occult,' was deemed impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the 'Pico' standard. A school board may not remove or restrict books from a library 'simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Supreme Court's holdings in 'Tinker' and 'Pico,' applying them to a policy that restricts, rather than completely removes, books from a school library. It establishes that even minor burdens on access, such as a parental permission requirement, are unconstitutional if motivated by the school board's intent to suppress disfavored ideas. The decision clarifies that a board's justification for such restrictions must be based on concrete evidence of potential substantial disruption, not on speculative fears or ideological objections. This precedent strengthens students' First Amendment rights to receive information in the school library context and limits the authority of school boards to curate library collections based on their own personal or religious viewpoints.
