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

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Constitutional Law

457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Updated July 31, 2026

conlawFirst Amendmentpublic schoolsschool librariesright to receive informationschool librarybook removalofficial orthodoxy

Facts

After several board members attended a conference sponsored by a politically conservative parents' organization, the board identified books in the high school and junior high school libraries that had been listed as objectionable. The board informally directed that the books be removed from library shelves, later publicly describing them as anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and filthy, and appointing a Book Review Committee to recommend whether they should be retained. Although the committee recommended retaining several books and offered mixed recommendations on others, the board largely rejected the committee's report without giving reasons and removed most of the books from the libraries. The student plaintiffs alleged that the board acted because passages in the books offended the board's social, political, and moral tastes rather than because the books as a whole lacked educational value.

Issue

Does the First Amendment impose any limitation on a local school board's discretion to remove books from public school library shelves? If so, did the evidentiary materials before the District Court create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the board exceeded those constitutional limits?

Rule

Local school boards have broad discretion over school affairs, but they may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion. If the board intended by its removal decision to deny students access to ideas with which it disagreed, and that intent was the decisive factor in the decision, the removal violates the First Amendment; removal based decisively on pervasive vulgarity or educational suitability is not unconstitutional on that ground.

🔒

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.

The school board in Dayton, Ohio removes three novels from a public high school library after several board members say at a meeting that the books promote "anti-police" and "anti-patriotic" attitudes. A review panel of teachers and librarians had recommended keeping all three books as age-appropriate and educationally useful, but the board rejected the recommendation without explanation.

If students sue under § 1983 and the evidence is viewed in their favor, what is the strongest argument that the board's action violated the First Amendment?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a local school board has broad discretion, but it 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. Evidence that officials denounced the books as anti-patriotic, rejected a contrary review recommendation, and offered no neutral explanation supports an inference that suppression of ideas was the decisive factor. The case does not create an absolute right to all books, does not make committee procedures independently dispositive, and does not forbid all reliance on community values.