168

Trump-appointed judge rips Texas law setting up book-ban regime for state's schools (UPDATE: it's going into effect. see blurb) (www.lawdork.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by geosoco@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“This is textbook compelled speech,” U.S. District Judge Alan Albright ruled in halting enforcement of the law. Texas is appealing.

...

OP NOTE: This is actually a week old, today 3 judge panel allowed the ban to go into effect. Here's the author's mastodon post about it. though there are few other details

BREAKING: A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas) allows Texas’s book-ban law to go into effect, issuing an administrative stay of the district court ruling enjoining enforcement of the law.
The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.

... rest of blurb ...

On Monday, a federal judge ruled in favor of booksellers who argued that Texas’s new law banning some books from public school libraries and restricting others through an onerous and complicated regime is likely unconstitutional in an opinion that blasted the law and the arguments the state made in its defense.

“[T]his Court has found that READER likely violates the First Amendment by containing an unconstitutional prior restraint, compelled speech, and unconstitutional vagueness,” U.S. District Judge Alan Albright — a Trump appointee to the federal bench — concluded in issuing a preliminary injunction halting state officials from enforcing the law. Texas already announced that it is appealing the decision.

...

“To put the scale of the number of books that would need to be rated in perspective, a librarian in San Antonio for Northside ISD testified that six school districts alone had library collections totaling over six million items,“ Albright wrote. There are more than 1,200 school districts in Texas.

Let’s just get this out of the way: Albright cannot believe this law exists. He also cannot believe the arguments the state made in its defense.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Not american, can't follow this circus. Can we get a translation/summary?

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Texas sucks.

Also, states have their own laws but are beholden to the constitution through courts run by the federal (national) government. If a state law is challenged in federal court, it is tested to see if it violates the constitution.

At one level, a Texas law banning books in schools or something was deemed un-constitutional, so it is still a law but is unenforceable. Later, a higher level federal court decided (probably after the state of Texas appealed the first decision) that it is fine and now the law is in effect.

Sorry I may have missed something

[-] geosoco@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Great summary! a teensy nitpick. I wouldn't say the most recent court said it was "fine" per se since they didn't give any reasoning. It is at least possible, that there is a technical issue with earlier rulings. It could be minor technicality, and they let the law take effect pending the next court date?

I think your implication is likely correct, and this is probably political, but we really don't know the reason, and I think not giving one is surprising.

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Good point! I didn't think of that

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the summaries, I guess we will stay tuned for when it's ultimately decided

this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023

168 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19145 readers

1909 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News