A radical judge thought parents had no say in what fills school library shelves.
Now Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and 21 other states are fighting back.
And Steve Marshall just backed Florida against woke publishers with this powerful brief.
Federal Judge Sides With Publishers Over Parents
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall joined a 21-state coalition filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting Florida's House Bill 1069.¹
The law prohibits books describing sex acts from K-12 public school classrooms and libraries.
In August 2025, federal district court Judge Carlos Mendoza ruled that Florida's law likely violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause and blocked the state from enforcing it.²
That decision came after Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebooks sued Florida in August 2024.
The publishers claimed HB 1069 imposed "a regime of strict censorship in school libraries" by requiring schools to remove materials depicting sexual conduct.³
Judge Mendoza bought their argument hook, line, and sinker.
But Marshall and his fellow attorneys general aren't backing down.
"It should be common sense that the First Amendment does not require public schools to fill their library shelves with graphic books depicting sex acts," Marshall stated.⁴
https://twitter.com/AGSteveMarshall/status/2003466907312357396?s=20
"But we are at the point where such commonsense interpretations have to be spelled out in legal briefs, so we are proud to help Florida defend its law, and we call on the Eleventh Circuit to quickly correct the decision of the district court," he added.
The coalition's brief argues that decisions about what materials belong in school libraries are "government speech" under the First Amendment.
Schools aren't required to make sexually graphic materials available to K-12 students at taxpayer expense.
What Florida's Law Actually Does
Florida passed HB 1069 in 2023 after parents discovered books with graphic descriptions of sexual acts in school libraries.
Governor Ron DeSantis signed the legislation, which prohibits pornographic materials or materials depicting sexual conduct from classrooms and school libraries.⁵
"Over the past year, parents have used their rights to object to pornographic and sexually explicit material they found in school libraries," DeSantis explained.⁶
Under the law, if a parent or county resident objects to a book, schools must remove it within five days pending review.
A state-appointed special magistrate then reviews the challenge.
Publishers and left-wing activists painted this as "book banning."
They claimed hundreds of titles were removed from Florida school libraries because of the law.
But that narrative ignores what books were actually being challenged.
https://twitter.com/AGTimGriffin/status/2001769368850452511?s=20
Some districts removed books featuring explicit descriptions of homosexual sex acts.
One graphic novel contained X-rated visual depictions that no elementary school student should see.
Parents weren't trying to ban To Kill a Mockingbird or The Great Gatsby.
They were protecting their children from age-inappropriate pornographic content.
Publishers Try to Make Money Off Corrupting Kids
The 21-state brief makes a crucial point that publishers don't want to talk about.
"Selecting what books belong in public-school library collections necessarily involves making editorial decisions about which books—out of millions—are age-appropriate, educational, and worthy of expending taxpayer funds," the filing states.⁷
Public schools have limited budgets and limited shelf space.
Every book they choose to purchase and shelve represents a decision about educational value and appropriateness.
Publishers like Penguin Random House want to force schools to stock their books regardless of content.
That means Florida taxpayers would be required to pay for books describing sex acts and making them available to children without parental knowledge or consent.
The brief argues this doesn't implicate the First Amendment's right to receive information.
Students can still get these books from their parents or any other source besides public school libraries.
"It simply prohibits age-inappropriate books describing sex acts from being in K-12 public-school libraries at taxpayer expense," the brief explains.⁸
Marshall and the other attorneys general are exposing what's really happening.
Big publishing companies are using federal courts to force schools to promote their products to children.
These corporations care more about their bottom line than protecting kids from harmful content.
https://twitter.com/AGSteveMarshall/status/1831689648781021375?s=20
The Real Constitutional Issue at Stake
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin led the coalition filing the amicus brief.⁹
Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia joined Marshall in supporting Florida.
The brief argues that Judge Mendoza misunderstood how government speech works under the First Amendment.
When schools curate their library collections, they're expressing the government's view about what materials have educational value.
That's government speech, which the Free Speech Clause doesn't restrict.
"The government is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says," the brief notes, citing Supreme Court precedent.¹⁰
If every student, publisher, and activist group can bring a First Amendment challenge over library decisions, unelected federal judges become the curators.
They'll decide which books belong on shelves and which don't.
https://twitter.com/tampafreepress/status/2003312054766391716?s=20
That takes power away from parents, school boards, and state legislators—the people who should be making these decisions.
Marshall put it perfectly when he called out how absurd this has become.
We're at the point where courts need to be told that the Constitution doesn't require elementary schools to stock pornography.
That's how far left-wing judges have strayed from common sense.
Florida appealed Judge Mendoza's ruling in September 2025, and now the Eleventh Circuit will decide.¹¹
With 21 states backing Florida's position, the court has no excuse for getting this wrong.
Parents have a right to protect their children from sexually explicit content in schools.
Publishers don't have a constitutional right to profit off corrupting kids with taxpayer money.
The Eleventh Circuit needs to reverse this outrageous decision and let Florida's law stand.
¹ "Attorney General Marshall Files Brief Supporting Florida Law That Prohibits Sexually Graphic Materials in Public-School Libraries," Alabama Attorney General's Office, December 22, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Kristina Watrobski, "Major publishers sue Florida over restriction of 'pornographic' school library books," The National Desk, August 30, 2024.
⁴ "Attorney General Marshall Files Brief Supporting Florida Law That Prohibits Sexually Graphic Materials in Public-School Libraries," Alabama Attorney General's Office, December 22, 2025.
⁵ Kristina Watrobski, "Major publishers sue Florida over restriction of 'pornographic' school library books," The National Desk, August 30, 2024.
⁶ "AG Marshall joins coalition standing with Florida to protect students from sexually graphic materials in K-12 schools," 1819 News, December 23, 2025.
⁷ Brief of Amici Curiae Arkansas et al., Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson, No. 25-13181 (11th Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2025).
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ "Arkansas Attorney General leads 21-state brief supporting Florida school library law," KAIT, December 18, 2025.
¹⁰ Brief of Amici Curiae Arkansas et al., Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson, No. 25-13181 (11th Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2025).
¹¹ James B. Blasingame, "Federal judge overturns part of Florida's book ban law," WLRN, September 19, 2025.
