Press Release

US DISTRICT COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ISSUES PERMANENT INJUNCTION FINDING TEXAS CENSORSHIP LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Ruling Finds Law Violates First Amendment Rights of Booksellers, Publishers, Authors, and Readers

Today, Judge Alan D. Albright of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, partially granted plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction blocking a vast and burdensome book ratings regime known as the “READER Act” (or HB 900). The judge had previously barred enforcement of the state law in a September 2023 preliminary injunction ruling that was upheld by the Fifth Circuit. 

The following are joint remarks from Valerie Koehler, owner of Houston’s Blue Willow Bookshop; Gregory Day, the Interim General Manager of Austin, Texas-based bookstore, BookPeople; Allison K Hill, CEO of the American Booksellers Association; Maria A. Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers; Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild; and Jeff Trexler, Interim Director of Comic Book Legal Defense Fund:

“Today’s decision affirms the constitutional rights of authors, booksellers, publishers, and readers, and protects bookstores from the imposition of an unreasonable law that would have threatened their viability, making it a huge win for Texas businesses. We thank Judge Albright for a critically important ruling that is clear, concise, and extremely well-reasoned.”

Additional Background

Today’s decision stems from a suit first filed on July 25, 2023 by a coalition including Texas bookstores, national booksellers, authors and publishers in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The suit challenged a Texas law that would have required independent bookstores, national chain bookstores, large online book retailers, book publishers and other vendors to review and rate millions of books and other library materials according to sexual content if those books are sold to public school libraries, and to do so according to vague labels dictated by the state without any process for judicial review. 

Judge Albright granted a preliminary injunction barring the implementation of the law on September 18, 2023. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction on January 17, 2025, noting that “Plaintiffs have an interest in selling books without being coerced to speak the State’s preferred message,” and agreed with Judge Albright’s preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims and were “likely to sustain economic and constitutional injuries” if the law remained in effect.

Highlights from the ruling include:

• The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown there is (1) injury in fact—harm to constitutional rights and economic injury; (2) there is a causal connection between that injury and READER; and (3) a favorable decision would redress their injury. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have Article III standing.
• The Court rejects Defendant’s attempted characterization of READER. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that READER is compelling speech and is a bookselling regulation. 
• READER imposes unconstitutional conditions on a party’s ability to contract with the government, because it requires Plaintiffs to surrender their First Amendment rights in order to do any business with public schools. The government may not deny Plaintiffs the right to sell books to public schools on a basis that infringes their constitutionally protected interests. 
• READER unconstitutionally compels Plaintiffs to make controversial statements against their will and accept the TEA’s {Texas Education Agency’s} ratings as their own, in violation of their sincerely held beliefs. 
• READER also compels Plaintiffs to assign ratings to books when they would prefer not to.
• The First Amendment protects against the government compelling a person to speak its message when he would prefer to remain silent or to include ideas within his speech that he would prefer not to include.
• The Court agrees with Plaintiffs as it did in its preliminary injunction order that the Rating Requirements are an unconstitutional prior restraint.
• The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown they face irreparable harm if READER is not permanently enjoined. 

 The full ruling can be found here.