Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentPublic SchoolsSchool LibrariesFirst Amendmentschool board discretionschool librariesright to receive information and ideas

Facts

After several board members attended a conference sponsored by a conservative parents' organization and obtained lists of allegedly objectionable books, the board directed that listed books be removed from the school library shelves for review. The board publicly described the books as anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and filthy, then appointed a Book Review Committee to evaluate them under criteria including educational suitability, good taste, relevance, and age appropriateness. Although the committee recommended retaining several books and removing only some, the board largely rejected the committee's recommendations without explanation and ordered most of the books removed from school libraries and from curricular use. Students alleged the board acted because the books' ideas offended the board's social, political, and moral tastes, not because the books as a whole lacked educational value.

Issue

Does the First Amendment limit a local school board's discretion to remove books from public school library shelves? If so, did the summary judgment record raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the board removed the books in order to suppress ideas with which it disagreed?

Rule

Local school boards retain broad discretion over school affairs, including school library content, but that discretion must be exercised within First Amendment limits. A board may not remove books from school library shelves simply because it dislikes the ideas contained in them and seeks to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion; removal based on decisive permissible grounds such as pervasive vulgarity or educational suitability is not unconstitutional on that basis.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Akron, the Maple Run School Board voted to remove four novels from the high school library after several members announced at a public meeting that the books were "anti-patriotic" and "hostile to traditional religion." The board bypassed its usual review policy, ignored the superintendent's recommendation to use it, and gave no explanation after a review panel recommended keeping three of the books.

If students sue and the board moves for summary judgment, what is the strongest argument against granting it?

Explanation. The controlling rule is narrow: a local school board may not remove books from a school library simply because it dislikes the ideas in them and seeks to prescribe orthodoxy in matters of opinion. At summary judgment, courts must draw inferences in favor of the students. Public statements condemning ideas, irregular procedures, and rejection of advisory recommendations without explanation can support an inference of impermissible motive, so summary judgment for the board would be improper.