Federal Judge Strikes Down Key Part of Florida Law Leading to School Book Removals

Introduction to the Case

TALLAHASSEE — Siding with publishers and authors, a federal judge Wednesday ruled that a key part of a 2023 Florida law that has led to books being removed from school library shelves is “overbroad and unconstitutional.” U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza issued a 50-page decision in a First Amendment lawsuit filed last year against members of the State Board of Education and the school boards in Orange and Volusia counties. He focused primarily on part of the law that seeks to prevent the availability of reading material that “describes sexual conduct.”

Analysis of the Law

The Orlando-based judge wrote that the law “does not evaluate the work to determine if it has any holistic value” and “does not specify what level of detail ‘describes sexual conduct.’” “As plaintiffs note, it is unclear what the statute actually prohibits,” Mendoza wrote. “It might forbid material that states characters ‘spent the night together’ or ‘made love.’ Perhaps not. Defendants do not attempt to explain how the statute should work.” He added that the Florida Department of Education directed educators to “err on the side of caution,” which resulted in books being removed because of fears school districts would be punished.

Impact of the Law on Schools

The law (HB 1069) set up a process in which parents could object to reading material that is “pornographic” or “depicts or describes sexual conduct.” It required books that received such objections to be removed within five days and to remain unavailable until the objections were resolved. Six publishing companies, The Authors Guild, five authors and two parents filed the lawsuit in August 2024 amid controversies in many areas of the state about decisions by school districts to remove books from library shelves or restrict access.

Court Ruling and Its Implications

In fighting the lawsuit, the state’s attorneys argued, in part, that the selection of library books is “government speech” and not subject to the First Amendment. But Mendoza rejected that argument Wednesday, saying “the removal of library books without consideration of their overall value cannot be expressive activity amounting to government speech.” “A blanket content-based prohibition on materials, rather than one based on individualized curation, hardly expresses any intentional government message at all,” Mendoza wrote. “Slapping the label of government speech on book removals only serves to stifle the disfavored viewpoints.”

Specific Books Affected by the Law

The lawsuit cited removals from library shelves of numerous books, such as “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison and “Love in the Time of Cholera” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Both of those authors were awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for their novels and other work. The plaintiffs in the case are publishing companies Penguin Random House LLC, Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC, Simon & Schuster, LLC and Sourcebooks LLC; The Authors Guild; authors Julia Alvarez, John Green, Laurie Halse Anderson, Jodi Picoult and Angie Thomas; and parents Heidi Kellogg and Judith Anne Hayes.

Conclusion

The ruling by Judge Mendoza is a significant development in the ongoing debate about censorship and the freedom to read in Florida schools. By striking down the key part of the law, the court has sent a clear message that the removal of books from school libraries must be done in a manner that respects the First Amendment and does not unfairly restrict access to information. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for schools and libraries across the state, and may pave the way for the return of removed books to library shelves.

FAQs

• Q: What was the basis of the lawsuit filed against the State Board of Education and school boards in Orange and Volusia counties?
  A: The lawsuit was filed on the grounds that a key part of the 2023 Florida law leading to book removals from school libraries is “overbroad and unconstitutional,” violating the First Amendment.
• Q: Which books were cited in the lawsuit as examples of those removed from library shelves?
  A: Examples included “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison and “Love in the Time of Cholera” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
• Q: What was the ruling of U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza regarding the law?
  A: Judge Mendoza ruled that the part of the law seeking to prevent the availability of reading material that “describes sexual conduct” is unconstitutional because it does not evaluate the holistic value of the work and lacks specificity.
• Q: Who were the plaintiffs in the case?
  A: The plaintiffs included six publishing companies, The Authors Guild, five authors, and two parents.
• Q: What is the potential impact of the court’s decision on schools and libraries in Florida?
  A: The decision may lead to the return of removed books to library shelves and will likely influence how schools and libraries approach the selection and removal of books in the future, ensuring that any actions taken are in compliance with the First Amendment.
  Originally Published: August 13, 2025 at 6:33 PM EDT