Wrapping up a hurly-burly session, the U.S. Supreme Court today announced two decisions that influence the book industry and the availability of library resources.

In Tamer Mahmoud et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor et al., a case in which Maryland parents objected on religious grounds to public school children reading classroom books with LGBTQ+ subject matter, SCOTUS decided 6–3 that the parents are "entitled to a preliminary injunction." Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 41-page ruling, holding that "a government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill." Justice Clarence Thomas contributed a concurrence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, voicing her concern that "the result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools," creating administrative tasks for schools and caregivers that will lead to greater censorship and narrower public education for U.S. children.

Regarding the Mahmoud decision, six Maryland parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education and superintendent Taylor in May 2023 over nine picture books on the school district’s approved elementary school curriculum. The books included Robin Stevenson and illustrator Julie McLaughlin’s Pride Puppy!, about a dog who gets lost at a Pride parade; Charlotte Sullivan Wild’s Stonewall Book Award–winning Love, Violet, illustrated by Charlene Chua, about a girl with a crush on a same-sex classmate; and Sarah and Ian Hoffman’s Jacob’s Room to Choose, illustrated by Chris Case, which the Hoffmans wrote after their child was bullied for gender nonconformity.

Two books on the list, Sarah Brannen and illustrator Lucia Soto’s Uncle Bobby’s Wedding and Daniel Haack and illustrator Stevie Lewis’s Prince and Knight, were published by Little Bee Books. Little Bee CEO Shimul Tolia and editorial director Brett Duquette have spoken about their indie press’s partnership with the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD and the importance of queer representation.

The school board temporarily offered parents a compromise, using their guidelines for respecting religious diversity to establish accommodations for students who wished to opt out of the readings. Despite their effort, the administrative burden of sending home letters and arranging requests became burdensome and impractical, and the compromise was discontinued.

The Maryland parents, who identify as Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox, contended that requiring children to read these books is a violation of families’ religious liberties. Also named in the suit is Kids First, which describes itself as an association of parents and teachers. On its website, Kids First alleges that the school district forced “pre-K and elementary-aged children to read controversial books that promote a one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning, and focus excessively on romance,” without giving parents “notification or opportunity to opt out.”

Critics have likened the case to Florida’s censorious “Don’t Say Gay” bill. PEN America argued that the case was as much about intellectual freedom as religious freedom, because removing the books for some families “would infringe on free speech for others,” constitute “viewpoint discrimination,” and disincentivize schools from assigning gender-inclusive stories in the future.

Most authors and illustrators of the challenged books signed on to a statement posted by PEN America, reinforcing that their books aim to help children “feel seen.” They argue, “Hiding our books away sends a devastating message to students: that their lives and their families are so dangerous that they cannot be discussed at school.”

Penguin Random House, which in April joined the Authors Guild and the Educational Book and Media Association in an amicus brief supporting the Maryland school district, called the ruling "a devastating setback for public education and the right to read." PRH said it stood with "the teachers, librarians, and students now facing even greater barriers to building classrooms that reflect the world around them.”

"Allowing individuals to opt-out of reading certain materials erases marginalized voices and forces teachers to manage restrictions that lead to silent censorship," PRH wrote in the statement. "Reading a book does not require agreement—only openness to engaging with different experiences."

Justice Sotomayor said the Court's ruling "hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards." She noted that the majority "closes its eyes to the inevitable chilling effects of its ruling," and she feared schools might decide to "censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections," despite the incredible religious diversity among public school children in the nation.

E-Rate decision

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, to determine the constitutionality of a federal program that subsidizes universal broadband access for schools, libraries, and under-resourced areas, SCOTUS found 6–3 that the funding can stand. Justice Kagan wrote the 37-page majority opinion, with concurrences from Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a 38-page dissent, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas.

SCOTUS affirmed the constitutionality of federally subsidized high-speed internet services for public libraries, K–12 schools, and other public and tribal organizations in the U.S. and its territories. The FCC offers four Universal Service Fund programs, which were approved by Congress through the Telecommunications Act of 1996; one of these, E-Rate, provides discounts of between 20–90% on libraries telecommunications services, internet, and wiring.

Justice Kagan wrote in the majority opinion on E-Rate that, "For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the [FCC] in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution."

The American Library Association, a strong proponent of E-Rate, published an amicus brief in support of the FCC in January. ALA president Cindy Hohl cheered today's Supreme Court decision. Noting that "roughly 20 percent of U.S. households still lack access to home broadband," and must access high-speed internet in libraries and schools, Hohl said the the E-Rate program is "a lifeline for public libraries and millions of Americans, especially in rural and underserved communities."

“Today’s ruling protects equitable access to broadband connectivity through libraries and the opportunities it affords for education, employment, and civic participation in the modern era,” Hohl said in an ALA statement. "We must continue to work with partners and national leaders to ensure that the USF remains a sustainable, predictable, and long-term source of funding and access for decades to come."

This article has been updated with further information.