Private schools file suit to challenge ‘government interference’ of Idaho library law

BOISE (Idaho Statesman) — Private schools and privately funded libraries in Idaho sued state officials Thursday, challenging a controversial new law that allows community members to challenge library books they believe are “harmful” to children.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boise, argued that the law reaches new heights of invasiveness by limiting the rights of parents and institutions to furnish youths with books.

“In addition to censoring materials in public schools and public libraries, Idaho’s book banning law is the first in the nation to reach into nongovernmental institutions — like private schools, and even church libraries,” the plaintiffs, which include private schools and libraries in Ketchum and in Boise, said in an emailed statement.

“Our coalition of independent schools, libraries, parents, students, and patrons is challenging this unprecedented government interference because it threatens the independence and core missions of our beloved community institutions across the state.”

The challengers are represented by prominent attorneys, including Wendy Olson, a former U.S. attorney, Latonia Haney Keith, an administrator at The College of Idaho and a former Boise City Council member, and McKay Cunningham, another C of I administrator and a constitutional law professor.

House Bill 710 allows library patrons to sue if staff members don’t relocate or remove a cited book or other media 60 days after a patron has submitted a written removal request. The standards for removal are based on Idaho’s obscenity law, which identifies sexual material that appeals “to the prurient interest of minors as judged by the average person,” and that depict sexual activity “patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community.”

Sexual conduct includes homosexuality, nudity and masturbation, according to the obscenity law that dates from the 1970s.

A hot topic at the Legislature in recent years, the concept of restricting access to books at libraries gained traction with far-right Republicans who said they were seeking to prevent a “woke agenda” from reaching the state’s children. At public hearings at the Idaho Capitol this year, supporters of the bill made inflammatory and largely unfounded claims that pornography was available to children at libraries, or that librarians were encouraging pedophelia.

Large numbers of library supporters also testified at the hearings, opposing the law and arguing that it would largely serve to suppress books about LGBTQ+ topics.

Several versions of a restrictive bill were debated this year, in a fight that divided the GOP’s most staunchly conservative lawmakers with those who are more moderate. All Democrats opposed the bills.

Before one compromise version of a library bill failed to pass the Senate by a single vote, Senate Pro Tem Chuck Winder, R-Boise, cautioned his colleagues that those who voted against it “may end up with something a lot worse than what’s before you today.”

Though Gov. Brad Little vetoed a bill last year over concerns that it could debilitate libraries with damage claims, he relented on House Bill 710, telling an Idaho Public Television reporter he had “signed that stinking library bill.” It went into effect July 1.

The public library in Donnelly, a town south of McCall, has transitioned to an adults-only library because of concerns about the law, according to previous Statesman reporting.

LAWSUIT FOCUSES ON LAW’S BROADNESS AND SPOTLIGHT ON GAY LIFE

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argued the law “encompasses works of significant cultural, historical, literary and scientific import that are central to an informed education.”

That could include “health education textbooks, images of canonical works of art like Michealangelo’s David, significant works of literature like Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, and even the Bible, if a Defendant or citizen complainant subjectively believes members of their community would find them offensive,” they said.

“The Constitution does not permit the State to engage in content-based censorship to mollify a community’s most sensitive and censorious members,” they added.

The lawsuit names Attorney General Raul Labrador, Ada County Prosecutor Jan Bennetts and Blaine County Prosecutor Matt Fredback as defendants.

The House bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, has argued that the law is not aimed at banning books, but rather at relocating them to an adult section. He has said the state’s obscenity law meets the Miller test, a constitutional test from the U.S. Supreme Court which distinguishes between obscene materials and works of literary, artistic or educational value.

The plaintiffs disagree, arguing that the law is ambiguous and too broadly crafted, and that it specifically targets homosexuality by specifying “any act of … homosexuality,” which could encompass same-sex couples “holding hands, kissing, cohabitating, or engaged in parenting,” according to the lawsuit.

In interviews with a Statesman reporter, Crane and his brother, the influential Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, declined to say whether they thought depictions of gay life were obscene.

A person wanting a film cover with two men kissing removed from view, Jaron Crane said, “has every right to ask that it be moved,” he said. “There’s nothing wrong with … requesting that.”