“This is textbook compelled speech,” U.S. District Judge Alan Albright ruled in halting enforcement of the law. Texas is appealing.
…
OP NOTE: This is actually a week old, today 3 judge panel allowed the ban to go into effect. Here’s the author’s mastodon post about it. though there are few other details
BREAKING: A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas) allows Texas’s book-ban law to go into effect, issuing an administrative stay of the district court ruling enjoining enforcement of the law.
The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.
… rest of blurb …
On Monday, a federal judge ruled in favor of booksellers who argued that Texas’s new law banning some books from public school libraries and restricting others through an onerous and complicated regime is likely unconstitutional in an opinion that blasted the law and the arguments the state made in its defense.
“[T]his Court has found that READER likely violates the First Amendment by containing an unconstitutional prior restraint, compelled speech, and unconstitutional vagueness,” U.S. District Judge Alan Albright — a Trump appointee to the federal bench — concluded in issuing a preliminary injunction halting state officials from enforcing the law. Texas already announced that it is appealing the decision.
…
“To put the scale of the number of books that would need to be rated in perspective, a librarian in San Antonio for Northside ISD testified that six school districts alone had library collections totaling over six million items,“ Albright wrote. There are more than 1,200 school districts in Texas.
Let’s just get this out of the way: Albright cannot believe this law exists. He also cannot believe the arguments the state made in its defense.
One difficulty that the Trumpies have with libertarian-conservative judges and lawyers is that the latter do believe in things like rights and law, while the former really only believe in power.
Depends on the judge, some just like power and privilege.
True, but those are mostly the good-old-boy types who show up drunk to work, not the earnest Federalist Society types.
Your Kavanaughs versus your Gorsuchs
There arent really any earnest Federalist Society types, those dont move up the chain of corruption to the higher echelons of court positions.
Just because he’s a Trump appointed judge doesn’t mean he exclusively makes bad decisions. I agree on this one.
Just means keeping a closer eye on em.
Judge Albright is kind of a (controversial) celebrity among intellectual property lawyers. Until the district started randomizing case assignments, everyone used to try to file in Albright’s court because he’s so plaintiff-friendly. The plaintiffs here got lucky with this judge assignment, too bad the Circuit Court is not amused lol.
I want to celebrate but isn’t part of the plan / what the conservatives want though? So they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and get permission to pass these laws nationwide?
OP NOTE: This is actually a week old, today 3 judge panel allowed the ban to go into effect. Here’s the author’s mastodon post about it. though there are few other details and I can’t find a new story about it.
BREAKING: A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas) allows Texas’s book-ban law to go into effect, issuing an administrative stay of the district court ruling enjoining enforcement of the law.
The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.
Of course they do it in the sketchiest possible way. They know it’s wrong, so they’re deliberately lying to try to escape rightful public outrage.
I’m sorry, but I might just be missing it. What’s being banned?
The intent is to ban books about topics they don’t like racism, queers, trans folks, abortion, etc as part of the “war on wokeness”. They pretend that they’re sexually graphic or things kids shouldn’t learn about, but it’s incredibly unlikely schools ever had books beyond a few classics.
Obviously, these are everyday topics so it’s going to ban a lot of neighboring content, probably including the bible. Regardless, because it’s at a state-run institution, it’s unconstitutional.
The kids will hear about all of these topics in much greater detail on fox news every day anyway, so this is entirely for show and to cause chaos.
Ok, so they’re doing what Florida is. Thank you. It wasn’t clear to me from the article.
Books
Conservatives try to pass a constitutional law challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
That was a satisfying read. I’m glad rule of law still exists to some extent and it’s not just team sports.
You miss the part where the circuit court put the ban back in place.
Yeah, that’s my problem. I added it after they commented.
Not american, can’t follow this circus. Can we get a translation/summary?
Texas sucks.
Also, states have their own laws but are beholden to the constitution through courts run by the federal (national) government. If a state law is challenged in federal court, it is tested to see if it violates the constitution.
At one level, a Texas law banning books in schools or something was deemed un-constitutional, so it is still a law but is unenforceable. Later, a higher level federal court decided (probably after the state of Texas appealed the first decision) that it is fine and now the law is in effect.
Sorry I may have missed something
Great summary! a teensy nitpick. I wouldn’t say the most recent court said it was “fine” per se since they didn’t give any reasoning. It is at least possible, that there is a technical issue with earlier rulings. It could be minor technicality, and they let the law take effect pending the next court date?
I think your implication is likely correct, and this is probably political, but we really don’t know the reason, and I think not giving one is surprising.
Good point! I didn’t think of that
Thanks for the summaries, I guess we will stay tuned for when it’s ultimately decided
