What happened to the 2006 ACLU lawsuit to stop book banning in Miami?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

For anyone who didn't know the Miami-Dade School Board wanted to ban a book, here's a link on what the story is (right wingers select a person to pretend they're upset about the book, officially bring it up to the school board, who then bans it):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/education/16cuba.html



For those who did know and didn't know what the result was, here's the order from the District Court:

http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&CID=438&DID=38972

ACLU v. Miami-Dade County School Board, No. 06-21577 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2006)

Legal Clips, July 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court in Florida has issued a preliminary injunction to block the Miami-Dade County School Board (MDCSB) from removing the book ¡Vamos a Cuba!, along with 23 other books in a series about life in other countries, from elementary school libraries. The court concluded that the plaintiffs, which included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Miami-Dade County Student Government Association (MDCSGA), have raised legitimate free speech and due process issues. An intense community dispute began when a Cuban exile and former political prisoner filed a complaint with MDCSB requesting the book's removal on the ground that it paints a distorted picture by ignoring the repressive nature of Cuba's totalitarian political regime. Under established board rules, this request was reviewed by two committees and the superintendent before being sent to the board for action. Both review committees, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, recommended the books remain on the shelves. After failing to broker a compromise, Superintendent Rudy Crew joined this recommendation. The school board's attorney warned that "even a well reasoned decision by the Board that deviates from the recommendation will expose the Board to liability." Nonetheless, the board voted 6-3 to replace not only the books about Cuba but the entire series.
The court noted that MDCSG's action was the same considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982). The two key questions were: 1) "what limitations, if any, does the First Amendment impose upon the discretion of to remove these library books from the Miami-Dade County school libraries; and 2) "for purposes of a preliminary injunction, has exceeded those limitations." Although MDCSB pointed out that the Pico decision was by a mere plurality instead of a majority of the Supreme Court, the district court concluded that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Florida, would be guided by Pico "if it is clearly demonstrated that the majority of members disagreed with the content or point-of-view, or because those members desired to impose upon their students a political orthodoxy to which they and their constituents adhered." The court also concluded that the Eleventh Circuit would follow Pico on the question of whether school officials adhered to regular procedures in arriving at their decision. While failure to do so is not a First Amendment violation, it may substantiate the existence of illegitimate motives.
The court rejected MDCSB's argument that under the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Bannon v. School District of Palm Beach County, 387 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2004), selection and removal of elementary school library books is a "curricular function" that constitutes "government speech," and, thus, does not implicate First Amendment rights. Bannon is inapplicable to removal of library books, the court held, noting that the books were never a part of any school project or any teacher's lesson plans. The board argued that removal was proper under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), because library selection would be considered "school-sponsored speech" and replacement of inaccurate books is "reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical consideration." But the court found that neither Supreme Court nor Eleventh Circuit precedent allows a school board to use the distinction between "government speech" and "school-sponsored speech" as a pretext for engaging in impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The board also argued that the substantial inaccuracies and material omissions of basic facts in the books justified their removal under the "educational suitability test" set forth in Pico. The court termed such arguments "post hoc rationalizations for book-banning."
Turning to the four elements required to obtain a preliminary injunction while the case proceeds, the court first found that the plaintiffs showed that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because the facts support a finding that the board circumvented its own procedures to engage in an act of "political orthodoxy." The court took careful note of board members' comments at the time of their vote and found that the book, while apolitical and content-neutral, simply did not address what the board majority felt is the true evil of the Castro government. The plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on the due process claim, the court determined, citing the decision to remove the whole series without resort to the established review process. The court then found that other three elements for a preliminary injunction—irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest—all favored granting the plaintiffs' motion.