Vonnegut heirs can proceed with challenge to Utah book removal law

A federal judge, without ruling on the merits of the case, said the plaintiffs made a sufficient showing that they are harmed by the ban of their books from public schools.(CN) — A federal judge allowed the heirs of Kurt Vonnegut to proceed Tuesday with their First Amendment challenge to a Utah law that calls for the removal of books with “sensitive” material from the state’s public schools.U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby in Salt Lake City rejected Utah’s argument that the Vonnegut heirs, along with four other authors or their estates, lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because, as it argued, they hadn’t suffered an invasion of a constitutionally protected right.The Barack Obama appointee noted the claims that the Utah law prevents the authors’ books from reaching their intended audience and harms them financially and reputationally were sufficient at this point of the litigation to overcome the state’s bid to dismiss the lawsuit solely on standing.“Here, there is no pending motion to dismiss the author plaintiffs on the merits of their claims,” Shelby said. “The motion moves for dismissal on the threshold standing inquiry alone. But whether the author plaintiffs’ injury rises to the level of a constitutional violation is an issue on the merits.”“For purposes of standing, the question cannot be whether the Constitution, properly interpreted, extends protection to the plaintiff’s asserted right or interest," the judge added. “If that were the test, every losing claim would be dismissed for want of standing.”A representative of the Utah Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on pending litigation.Vonnegut’s anti-war novel “Slaughterhouse-Five” is among the books that have run afoul of Utah’s law that, the plaintiffs say in their complaint, requires local education agencies “to strip their school libraries of any book that contains even a single description or depiction of sex, no matter how fleeting, no matter its context, and no matter its literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”The Vonnegut heirs are joined by the estate of Maya Angelou, whose “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” — about her experience growing up in the American South and the adversity she faced as a Black child experiencing racism and trauma — has been removed by local education agencies.Elana Arnold, Ellen Hopkins and Amy Reed, all three of whom had books removed from either some Utah local education agencies or statewide, are also participating in the lawsuit. Two Utah public high school students sued as well.“The Maya Angelou and Kurt Vonnegut legacies are grateful for the court’s clear-eyed decision,” David Given, partner at Counsel LLP in San Francisco, told Courthouse News in a statement. “We look forward to litigating our clients’ claims against the state of Utah and its book banning statute and vindicating their and the other plaintiffs’ free speech rights.”The Utah book removal law, first enacted in 2022 and amended in 2024, calls for the removal of books from the state’s public and charter schools deemed harmful to minors insofar as they include pornographic content, a description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality, nude or partially denuded figure or obscene animal abuse material.Any student, parent or school employee can request a sensitive material review of a book used or available in their school, and the local education agency is required to “prioritize protecting children from the harmful effects of illicit pornography over other considerations" in deciding whether the book should be removed.If three local education agencies decide a book is off limits for their students, the book in question is banned statewide from public schools.“Slaughterhouse-Five” has been among the most often banned books in the U.S. in the 55 years since its publication, due in part to its irreverent tone and casual depictions of sex, as well as profanity — though the same could be said for many of Vonnegut’s other books.It was even the subject, along with other books, of a landmark 1982 Supreme Court decision, Island Trees School District v. Pico, in which the court ruled “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’”Nonetheless, it remains banned in scattered districts across the country, including those in Missouri, Tennessee and Texas.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads