## Facts

- A New York school board relied on a list from a private organization identifying “objectionable” books and ordered removal of 11 titles from junior high and high school libraries.
- The board publicly characterized the books as “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy,” citing a duty to protect students from “moral danger.”
- The superintendent objected that existing district procedures for challenging library books were not followed.
- A review committee of parents and staff recommended retaining at least five books, but the board overrode the recommendation and removed all but two titles without further explanation.
- Students sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the removals violated the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment limits a public school board’s discretion to remove books from a school library based on their content.
2. Whether removing library books because officials disagree with the ideas expressed, rather than for educational suitability or pervasive vulgarity, violates students’ First Amendment rights.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper where evidence created a genuine dispute about the board’s motive for removing the books.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, allowing the students’ First Amendment claim to proceed.
- No single opinion commanded a majority; a plurality concluded that the First Amendment constrains library-book removals motivated by viewpoint-based suppression.
- The controlling result was that summary judgment for the board was improper because the record did not eliminate a factual dispute over whether the board acted to suppress disfavored ideas.

## Legal Principles

- Public school boards have broad authority over school affairs, but that authority is limited by the First Amendment when acting in ways that suppress ideas.
- The school library is distinct from the classroom: it is a setting of voluntary inquiry, making viewpoint-based removals more constitutionally suspect than curricular choices in a compulsory setting.
- A board may remove library books for legitimate reasons such as pervasive vulgarity or lack of educational suitability, but not as a pretext for eliminating disfavored viewpoints.
- Where evidence could support an inference that books were removed to impose ideological orthodoxy, motive becomes a material factual issue that can preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court’s fractured affirmance established that students may pursue a First Amendment claim when a school board removes library books amid evidence the action was driven by disagreement with the books’ ideas, and that such motive disputes generally require factfinding rather than dismissal on summary judgment.


Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)