|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
After three months of back-and-forth legal filings, a federal judge has ordered a status conference in the lawsuit against the Autauga-Prattville Public Library alleging discriminatory policy.
Judge Myron Thompson will hear both sides debate motions currently filed to dismiss the suit or allow the plaintiffs to amend or supplement their initial complaint. The hearing will take place at 8:30 a.m. on Aug. 7 at the Frank M. Johnson federal courthouse in Montgomery.
APPL patrons, Read Freely Alabama and the Alabama Library Association filed suit against the board in March, claiming that the policies passed by a newly constituted board in February were unconstitutionally overbroad, vague and engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
The APPL board met in June and created new policy in an effort to have the suit dismissed. The policy no longer expressly prohibits the purchase of certain books for minors containing sexual orientation or gender identity, instead giving the library director discretion to weed materials.
A resolution paired with the new policy, however, restrains the board from overriding the director’s decision to remove or move books that tackle “mature themes” such as “sexual orientation and transgender ideology.”
The plaintiffs allege that the new policy is simply presented differently in an effort to have the lawsuit dismissed, but will still result in LGBTQ books being removed from the library.
Hannah Rees, executive director of Clean Up Alabama, agrees with Read Freely Alabama on that point, posting in a Moms for Liberty Facebook group that “… we did not back down, exact same still no gender identity and sexual orientation but presented differently to get a lawsuit dismissal.
“We have still won and books have been removed from the library and will not be acquired from this point further,” Rees continued. “The APR article is straight BS.”
The plaintiffs cite this post in their motion to amend or supplement their complaint as evidence of the policy’s intent remaining the same despite the changed language.
The APR article that Rees was likely referring to as “straight BS” explains the policy similarly to the explanation given in the APPL board’s filing opposing the motion to allow the amendment of the complaint.
Attorney Bryan Taylor argues in the filing that the plaintiffs have failed to show standing and that the complaint is moot due to the major differences in the new policy.
“Like the original Complaint, the Proposed Pleading frames the injury as the unavailability of some reading material at the local public library which Plaintiffs believe the government is obligated to provide under the First Amendment,” the board’s motion states. “But as the Board points out in its Motion to Dismiss, the ‘naked recitation of a constitutional claim isn’t sufficient [to establish standing]; if it were, every (Section) 1983 plaintiff would, by definition, have standing to sue.'”
Although the library board argues that the case must be dismissed, it leaves the door open for what could allow the plaintiffs to file a new challenge against the policy.
“Moreover, the interests of efficiency and justice would best be served by granting the Motion to Dismiss and requiring the Plaintiffs to bring an as-applied challenge if and when the library director has actually denied a Plaintiff’s request to restore a book to the shelves under the new reconsideration procedures.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction against the current policy to prevent the library from enforcing its policy while the case awaits a trial on the merits.
