Judge Carlos Mendoza of the U.S. Middle District Court of Florida has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a major case related to book banning in the state. The 50-page decision, available here, states that the law used to pull books from Florida public schools is “overbroad and unconstitutional.”

Since its passage in 2023, Florida schools have removed hundreds of books under House Bill 1069 (HB 1069). HB 1069 required that school librarians remove materials from their collections that contain “sexual content,” regardless of the value of the book. It also allowed parents or county residents to raise objections to material, which then would need to be removed within five days of the objection and remain unavailable until the book was formally reviewed. The bill laid out no necessary timeline for review of material, nor did it require that material be returned to shelves, even following formal review.

Penguin Random House, alongside five other publishers; the Authors Guild; authors Julia Alvarez, Laurie Halse Anderson, John Green, Jodi Picoult, and Angie Thomas; two students; and two parents filed a lawsuit against Florida public officials in August 2024, claiming that the parts of HB 1069 that applied to books permitted widespread removal of materials from schools and were in violation of the First Amendment. The bill led to the removal of books without regard to their literary or artistic value. Trainings by the Florida Department of Education further encouraged school librarians to “err on the side of caution” when it came to materials in the collection, noting that if their libraries had materials with “sexual conduct,” it could lead to punishment.

“The judge’s order makes it clear that we cannot judge a book by its cover or a maliciously selected excerpt out of context,” said Stephana Ferrell of the Florida Freedom to Read Project. “This means that the thousands of books that have been prohibited from student access without careful consideration of their value should be returned to shelves immediately. Florida cannot call itself the “freest state” while it blatantly violates the First Amendment rights of our youngest citizens.”

Dan Novak, attorney for the plaintiffs, called the decision “a complete knockout. There’s not a single issue that the court did not side with the plaintiffs on,” per the Orlando Sentinel.

There are two key pieces in Judge Mendoza’s ruling worth highlighting. The first applies to where and how “sexual conduct” is considered in the context of the material being evaluated. Where HB 1069 encouraged removal of any material with “sexual conduct”–a phrase with no specific parameters, per the state–the ruling emphasizes that materials are to be judged by the prevailing Supreme Court standard known as the Miller Test. The Miller Test requires review of the materials as a whole, rather than through passages or excerpts. This applies even when reviewing materials for children, an argument that Florida officials have been leaning into (with precedent being the Ginsberg v. New York).

Judge Mendoza writes:

By leaving these items undefined, Florida has given parents license to object
to materials under an “I know it when I see it” approach. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378
U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J. concurring). There is a reason that was not the
standard the Supreme Court adopted for defining obscenity then. See id. at 191
(majority opinion); see also HM Fla.-ORL, LLC, 137 F.4th at 1213 (“An ‘I know it when I see it’ test would unconstitutionally empower those who would limit speech to arbitrarily enforce the law. But the First Amendment empowers speakers instead.”).

Here, neither a prohibition on content that “describes sexual conduct” nor that
which is allegedly “pornographic” takes the third Miller prong into account. Both prohibitions lack the specificity required in identifying obscene material. Given that obscene material as to minors is already prohibited under Florida law, these terms must, therefore, target non-obscene material.

This reiterates points made by intellectual freedom advocates over the last several years: there are not obscene materials for minors available in school nor public libraries. Such materials are illegal and not available to distribute nor purchase for those institutions.

A second key component of this ruling is on whether or not regulating books in school libraries constituted “government speech.” Officials for the state argued that they were empowered to make decisions about the materials in those collections because it constituted “government speech” and thus, was not subject to the First Amendment.

Judge Mendoza disagreed.

“A blanket content-based prohibition on materials, rather than one based on individualized curation, hardly expresses any intentional government message at all. Slapping the label of government speech on book removals only serves to stifle the disfavored viewpoints,” he wrote. While parents have the right to object to “direct the upbringing and education of children,” the government cannot then “repackage their speech and pass it off as its own.”

It is unclear at this point what this ruling means for the hundreds of books that were banned from Florida schools under HB 1069, other than those removals were flagrant violations of the First Amendment. Over the last several weeks, Florida’s State Board of Education has threatened public schools into removing dozens of books they deem “patently pornographic,” and at least nine districts have agreed to pulling those titles without review.

What or where this ruling will come into play in other states which have passed laws allowing them to remove books deemed “inappropriate” from public schools is also unclear. Judge Mendoza referenced numerous titles that were pulled from Florida schools, stating that those books did not meet the legal definition of “obscene” per the Miller Test. Many of those books are titles which have been banned in states like Utah and South Carolina.

Plaintiffs have established multiple unconstitutional applications of the
statutory provisions at issue. The following books, among others, have been
removed: The Color Purple, Half of a Yellow Sun, Cloud Atlas, The Splendid and
the Vile, I am Not Your Perfect Mexican Daughter, The Freedom Writers Diary:
How a Teacher and 150 Teens Used Writing to Change Themselves and the World Around Them, On the Road, Nineteen Minutes, Paper Towns, Looking for Alaska, How the García Girls Lost Their Accents, The Kite Runner, Slaughterhouse-Five, Shout, Last Night at the Telegraph Club, The Handmaid’s Tale, Native Son, Kaffir Boy: The True Story of a Black Youth’s Coming of Age in Apartheid South Africa, Water for Elephants, Beloved, Song of Solomon, The Bluest Eye, and Homegoing. None of these books are obscene.

As of writing, Florida officials have not yet responded to the ruling. It wouldn’t be surprising to see an appeal in the case.

“While we fully expect an appeal, we encourage state leaders to think about future Civics lessons and whether or not they will be on the right side of history arguing against the rights of its citizens,” said Ferrell.

There are still several major lawsuits underway related to book bans both in Florida and elsewhere in the US. This win is significant, especially in Florida, and may help pave the way for further victories.