## Facts

- Congress enacted the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to condition certain federal library Internet-access subsidies (including E-rate and LSTA grants) on the use of filtering software.
- CIPA required funded public libraries to block visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and to block for minors material harmful to minors.
- Congress acted based on evidence that patrons, including minors, used library terminals to access pornography and exposed others to it on screens and printers.
- Library organizations, patrons, and publishers challenged the statute as unconstitutional.
- A three-judge district court held CIPA facially unconstitutional, enjoined enforcement, and reasoned that filtering imposed an impermissible content-based restriction and exceeded Congress’s spending power because compliance would violate the First Amendment.
- The federal government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may, consistent with the First Amendment, condition federal Internet-access funding for public libraries on installation and use of Internet filtering software.
2. Whether CIPA’s funding condition is a valid exercise of Congress’s Spending Clause power or an unconstitutional condition inducing First Amendment violations.
3. Whether public library Internet access should be treated as a public forum requiring strict scrutiny of content-based restrictions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed, upholding CIPA in a 6–3 judgment.
- A plurality concluded that requiring filters as a funding condition does not violate patrons’ First Amendment rights and therefore does not induce unconstitutional conduct.
- The plurality rejected characterization of library Internet terminals as a public forum; it treated filtering as consistent with libraries’ longstanding practice of selecting and excluding material in service of their educational mission.
- The plurality found constitutionally significant that filters may be disabled or unblocked for adults on request for lawful purposes, mitigating overblocking concerns.
- Concurring Justices emphasized that constitutionality depends on practical availability of prompt unblocking for adults; they indicated that different facts could support as-applied challenges.
- Dissents would have affirmed invalidation, reasoning that filtering burdens adults’ access to protected speech and that reliance on unblocking forces adults to seek permission to view lawful material.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may attach conditions to federal funds to advance policy objectives, but may not condition funds to induce recipients to engage in unconstitutional conduct.
- Public libraries exercise content-based judgment in providing access to information; furnishing Internet terminals can be treated as an extension of that selective function rather than opening a traditional public forum.
- A facial First Amendment challenge to mandatory library filtering is weakened where adults can obtain disabling or unblocking for lawful purposes, reducing the effect of overblocking.
- Practical implementation matters: if unblocking for adults is not available without significant delay, First Amendment concerns may arise in an as-applied challenge.

## Conclusion

The Court held that CIPA’s requirement that federally funded public libraries use Internet filters is constitutional under the Spending Clause and the First Amendment because filtering is consistent with libraries’ traditional selection role and adults may obtain unblocking or disabling for lawful purposes.


United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003)