United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.
539 U.S. 194 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress has the authority under the Spending Clause to require public libraries to install internet filtering software as a condition for receiving federal funding, as such a condition does not induce libraries to violate their patrons' First Amendment rights.
Facts:
- Congress established the E-rate and Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) programs, which provide federal funding and discounts to public libraries for Internet access.
- A vast majority of the nation's public libraries began providing Internet access to patrons using this assistance.
- Libraries discovered that patrons of all ages were using library computers to access pornography, which was sometimes left on screens or printed, exposing other patrons and staff.
- In response, Congress enacted the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA).
- CIPA mandates that for a public library to receive E-rate or LSTA funds, it must employ a "technology protection measure" (filtering software) on its Internet-accessible computers.
- The filtering software must block visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or, for minors, harmful to them.
- CIPA contains a provision allowing library staff to disable the filter for an adult user for "bona fide research or other lawful purposes."
Procedural Posture:
- The American Library Association (ALA), along with other libraries, patrons, and website publishers, sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the enforcement of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), arguing its filtering provisions were facially unconstitutional.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court conducted a trial.
- The District Court held that CIPA was facially unconstitutional because it induced public libraries to violate the First Amendment and was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
- The District Court permanently enjoined the federal government from withholding funds from any public library for non-compliance with CIPA.
- The United States (appellant) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires public libraries to install Internet filtering software as a condition for receiving federal funding, violate the First Amendment rights of library patrons?
Opinions:
Plurality - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) does not violate the First Amendment. Public libraries' provision of Internet access is not a public forum, and therefore, content-based decisions are not subject to strict scrutiny. Instead, a library's decision to filter Internet content is a collection development choice analogous to its traditional discretion in selecting books. Because libraries have always excluded materials of inappropriate quality, their decision to filter pornography is a legitimate exercise of this discretion. Concerns about the software 'overblocking' constitutionally protected speech are mitigated by the provision that allows adults to have the filter disabled upon request. Furthermore, CIPA is a valid exercise of Congress's spending power; it does not penalize libraries for offering unfiltered access but rather chooses not to subsidize it, consistent with the principles of Rust v. Sullivan.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. The statute is not unconstitutional on its face because the government represents that a librarian will unblock filtered material for an adult user without significant delay. Given the compelling government interest in protecting minors, the law is permissible as long as the ability of adults to access protected material is not substantially burdened. If it is shown in the future that unblocking is difficult or significantly delayed, that would be the basis for an as-applied challenge, not a facial one.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. The Act's restrictions should be examined with a form of heightened, but not strict, scrutiny that weighs the harm to speech against the law's objectives and alternatives. The Act's goals of protecting children are compelling, and filtering software is an effective, if imperfect, means of achieving them. The potential harm from 'overblocking' is significantly limited by the provision allowing adults to request that the filter be disabled. Given this exception, the burden on adult patrons is minimal and not disproportionate to the legitimate interests served by the Act.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, CIPA violates the First Amendment. The Act imposes a blunt, nationwide restraint on adult access to a vast amount of constitutionally protected speech. The mandatory use of filtering software, which is known to be inaccurate and to both 'overblock' legitimate speech and 'underblock' harmful material, is not narrowly tailored to the government's interest. The option for a patron to request unblocking is an inadequate remedy, creating a significant prior restraint on speech by forcing patrons to seek official permission to read. This is an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of government funds that distorts the library's traditional mission of providing access to information.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes, CIPA is unconstitutional because it requires libraries to engage in censorship that they could not constitutionally perform on their own. Filtering Internet access is fundamentally different from a library's traditional pre-acquisition collection decisions, which are based on scarcity of funds and space; filtering is a post-acquisition restriction of access to information already paid for. The historical mission of libraries evolved to grant adults unrestricted access to materials. The statute's disabling provision is insufficient because it is discretionary ('may' unblock) and vaguely limited to 'lawful purposes,' creating a chilling effect on adult patrons who would otherwise access protected material.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the First Amendment status of Internet access in public libraries, holding that it is not a public forum subject to strict scrutiny. Instead, the Court analogized filtering to traditional library collection-development decisions, affording libraries and the government broad discretion. The ruling reinforces Congress's powerful authority under the Spending Clause to place conditions on federal funds, even when those conditions affect speech. However, the fragmented judgment, with two concurring opinions hinging on the ease of disabling the filters, effectively makes the constitutionality of CIPA dependent on its implementation and opens the door to future as-applied challenges if the unblocking process proves burdensome for adult patrons.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.