For so many children and young adults, the literature that they read informs, inspires, and provokes thought. A recent movement to start removing books from public and school libraries has caused lawsuits regarding book bans to pop up across the United States.
These cases may eventually make it to the United States Supreme Court, but until then, state courts will be using existing jurisprudence to analyze and rule on these cases, more specifically, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, a 1982 Supreme Court case originating from the Eastern District of New York.
Understanding the rationale of this case may help Americans understand the context in which courts today will evaluate the current lawsuits.
Let’s start with the facts of the case. The school board of Island Tree United Free School District decided to remove several books from the libraries of a district high school and junior high school. The board characterized these books as “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-[Semitic], and just plain filthy.”
A group of students, the petitioners, brought a lawsuit against the school board and its members, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This law makes any person who deprives another person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws liable to the person injured in legal action.
The rights the students claimed the school board infringed upon were their First Amendment rights to freely access ideas and information.
Seeking declaratory relief is seeking a judgment from the court that declares, or states, the legal relationship between the two parties, and how that would guide future actions and decisions for the parties. In this case, the petitioners asked the court to decide if the school board’s removal of certain books based on their content violated the student’s First Amendment rights. Injunctive relief is defined as a remedy to a lawsuit that stops a party from doing certain activities, like banning books from school libraries in this case.
The case moved through the court system and was appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court in 1982, which would make the final decision and set precedent for all courts across the country. Five of nine justices ruled in the students’ favor, but the reasons why varied.
Justice William Brennan Jr. announced the decision of the court and wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens. In summary, the justices concluded that it is the intent of the party when banning books that determines if the ban violates the other party’s First Amendment rights. The court ruled that the school board’s bans infringed the students’ right to receive information and ideas.
Justice Harry Blackmun, concurring with Justice Brennan’s opinion, agreed with ruling in the students’ favor, but because the school board violated the First Amendment when they banned texts for the purpose of restricting access to political ideas or social perspectives. Justice Byron White also concurred but did not express his thoughts on the First Amendment issue.
Overall, the court agreed that school boards do not have unlimited sovereignty to remove books from school libraries and are not permitted to remove books based on one’s personal disagreement with the content.
However, the court did agree that school boards could remove books for sound educational purposes, such as pervasive vulgarity or being unsuitable for education. Of course, the interpretation of what this means can vary significantly from person to person. This idea did not apply to Pico because the books were removed because certain individuals disagreed with the content of the books. Due to the narrow, ambiguous nature of this decision, many have criticized Pico, although it continues to be a guide for lower courts.
Numerous cases since 1983 have used Pico as precedent to defend against the banning of books, but as more and more lawsuits are filed, it becomes more likely a case will end up in the Supreme Court, where there is no guarantee that the current justices will rule the same way.
As the Supreme Court’s future interpretations remain uncertain, it underscores the ongoing importance of Americans knowing their constitutional rights and their application in our ever-changing society.