A federal judge ruled on Monday that key provisions of the controversial Arkansas book ban law, which sought to criminalize librarians and booksellers for distributing material deemed “harmful to children,” are unconstitutional. The ruling marks a significant victory for civil liberties and challenges to government overreach in the regulation of educational materials.
The Arkansas Act 372, signed into law in March 2023 by Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was designed to restrict access to material considered obscene or harmful for minors. The law sparked legal battles from the outset, with a coalition of organizations, including the ACLU of Arkansas and the Central Arkansas Library System (CALS), filing suit to challenge its constitutionality. The law’s broad language and potential for criminal penalties for librarians and booksellers who provide such materials raised concerns about censorship and the chilling effects it could have on freedom of expression in educational settings.
The sections of Act 372 that were struck down on Monday created criminal misdemeanor charges for those who “furnish harmful material to a minor,” and also mandated that local governments establish oversight boards to review challenged materials in public libraries. Critics of the law argued that the provisions were overly vague and could lead to arbitrary censorship of books, putting undue pressure on library staff and educators to avoid offering material that could be deemed controversial.
“This ruling affirms the importance of safeguarding intellectual freedom and protecting those who work to ensure children have access to a diverse range of ideas,” said Nate Coulter, Executive Director of the Central Arkansas Library System. Coulter, who had been outspoken in his opposition to the law, emphasized that the decision protects librarians from facing criminal charges simply for performing their professional duties.
Act 372 was intended to address concerns about children being exposed to what proponents, including Governor Sanders, described as “obscene” material. Sanders defended the law, stating that it was crafted to “protect children” from harmful content. “Schools and libraries shouldn’t put obscene material in front of our kids,” she said in a statement, confirming her intention to appeal the court’s ruling.
The lawsuit, brought forward by various organizations, argued that the law’s vague language could be weaponized by local authorities to censor books and materials that didn’t conform to certain political or cultural standards. Critics also raised concerns that the fear of prosecution could result in self-censorship by librarians, effectively limiting access to a wide range of literature.
“This decision is a significant milestone,” said Coulter, “and it’s a major step toward ensuring that libraries remain spaces where the free exchange of ideas is protected.”
The ACLU of Arkansas, which was also part of the coalition challenging the law, lauded the decision as a victory for free speech and against censorship in educational institutions. “The court’s decision underscores that the state cannot pass laws that undermine the rights of libraries to provide educational content free from political interference,” said Holly Dickson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas.
Despite this legal setback, Governor Sanders expressed her commitment to appealing the decision. “I will work with Attorney General Griffin to appeal this ruling and uphold Arkansas law,” Sanders said in response to the court’s decision. If the appeal is successful, it could set the stage for further legal battles that may ultimately bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role that the judiciary plays in balancing the government’s interest in protecting children with the constitutional rights of individuals and institutions, including libraries, to operate without undue interference.
This case is part of a broader national conversation about the boundaries of government power, free speech, and the rights of educational institutions to present diverse and unfiltered content to students. It also reflects growing tensions across the country regarding debates over the content of school curricula and public library collections.
Read more: