A collection of banned books (from the Kennedy Library)
ORLANDO, Fla. – A federal judge has ruled that part of Florida’s law restricting books that depict sexual conduct is unconstitutional.
Judge Carlos Mendoza for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida struck down part of House Bill 1069 in his Aug. 13 ruling.
Uthmeier
Gov. Ron DeSantis, soon after the ruling, said the state would appeal and believed it would be “vindicated.”
“Are we really going to keep doing this? You know, we’re here to do math and reading and science; we’re not here to inject gender theory,” DeSantis said at an Aug. 19 press conference in St. Cloud, Fla., according to the Tallahassee Democrat.
“That’s just not appropriate in the schools. We obviously have a right to insist on those standards.”
Earlier this month, Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
According to CBS News, Uthmeier’s office filed the notice Sept. 10. The notice did not include the state’s arguments.
Mendoza’s ruling last month supports a lawsuit filed by publishers, authors, and parents in August 2024.
Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishers, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebooks, along with authors Julia Alvarez, Laurie Halse Anderson, John Green, Jodi Picoult, and Angie Thomas, challenged HB 1069.
The measure, signed into law by DeSantis in 2023, allows any member of the community – not just parents – to demand the removal of any book in a school district that “describes sexual conduct” or that the person deems “pornographic.”
The books must be removed within five days of an objection. The plaintiffs argue that doing so keeps books unavailable indefinitely while the objections are reviewed.
The plaintiffs, including writers advocacy group Authors Guild, argue that the law fails to define what either term means.
Mendoza, in his ruling, said it’s “unclear what the statute actually prohibits.”
In particular, he ruled that the law’s prohibition on books that “describe sexual conduct” is facially overbroad and violates the First Amendment.
Mendoza also ruled that any prohibition on “pornographic” content must be interpreted as synonymous with Florida’s existing “harmful to minors” standard.
The state’s standard applies the rigorous “Miller-for-minors” test, which adapts the standard the U.S. Supreme Court set out in Miller v. California. This ensures that only truly obscene material – not literature with serious value – can be restricted.
“Before HB 1069, ‘any book that described sexual conduct was evaluated in its entirety in relation to the age and maturity of students who may read it under the harmful to minors provision,’” the judge wrote.
“To amend the law to say the same thing or effectuate the same purpose would be a pointless endeavor.”
The defendants argue that when schools select and remove library books, they are engaged in “government speech”. This means the government can say whatever it wants without First Amendment restrictions.
Under this theory, schools could remove any book for any reason, without constitutional oversight.
Mendoza rejected this argument. He noted that the state left it to ordinary citizens to object to books, and the state could hardly claim that as government speech. Moreover, the systematic removal of books “without consideration of their overall value cannot be an expressive activity amounting to government speech.”
The judge wrote it is “clear” that the removal of library books “without consideration of their overall value cannot be expressive activity amounting to government speech.”
Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, said in a statement Mendoza’s ruling affirms that literature has power.
“Book bans don’t just censor words on a page; they silence authors’ lived experiences and deny students access to the stories that help them navigate an increasingly complex world,” she said, adding that such laws damage authors’ reputation and livelihoods, and also lead to self-censorship.
“This decision sends a clear message: the Constitution protects the right to read, the right to access diverse literature, and the right of authors to have their voices heard. It provides a powerful template for challenging similar laws across the country, reaffirming the principle that governments must apply the Miller standard and consider a book’s overall value rather than isolated passages, respect the professional expertise of librarians and educators, and insist on actual evidence rather than speculation to justify censorship.”
The Authors Guild has been active in fighting similar book bans across the country, including in Rhode Island, Colorado, Iowa, Utah, Idaho, Arkansas, Texas, California and Virginia.
