For years, conservatives have claimed they’ve been subjects of unrelenting censorship. Most of that discourse has centered on being “silenced” on college and university campuses nationwide, and much of it has been patently untrue.

The right enjoys victimhood narratives, and being silenced is a particularly good one. They point to actual book bans they’ve spearheaded as “parental rights,” rather than First Amendment violations (a win!), while crying about their First Amendment rights being violated when they’re not invited to speak at whatever institution deserves the ire (unconstitutional!). It’s a win when their perspectives become the only ones, but it’s a tragedy when institutions don’t bow down and beg for them. Rights and freedoms belong only to one party, and it’s theirs.

Because U.S. courts are stacked in favor of the right, book censorship cases aren’t seeing the outcomes that they should. Take Little v. Llano County. Though the Plaintiffs took their loss at the Fifth Circuit–the only loss they saw in the years-long lawsuit over books removed from the Llano County Public Library and the violation therein of the First Amendment rights of an entire community–and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case late last year.

Little v. Llano County wasn’t Supreme Court catnip. It challenged the Constitutional legality of removing books about butts and farts and real American history. The case wouldn’t allow conservatives on the SCOTUS bench to parrot the right’s talking points about indoctrination, explicit content, and porn for kids happening in libraries because there were too many variables to dissect. That decision rendered by the Fifth, however, conveniently aligned with the right’s priorities. Politicians get to decide what books are or are not appropriate in the public libraries of three states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. And thanks to years of gerrymandering and voter suppression, the right has entrenched its priorities and values in these states. Conservatives can now exercise their power over books in taxpayer-funded libraries, putting the party's priorities over the people's needs, interests, and rights. The outcome of Little v. Llano County hasn’t been and won’t be limited to those three states. Already, several others have cited the case as a reason to assert political authority over access to books in public schools and public libraries across the country.

Several current cases are far more appealing to the conservative SCOTUS majority, including Penguin Random House v. Gibson. This one is currently before the 11th Circuit.

PRH v. Gibson concerns Florida’s House Bill 1069, which allows parents to object to material in classrooms or school libraries deemed “pornographic” or which “depicts or describes sexual conduct” per state statutes. Books challenged under the law need to be removed within 5 days of a complaint and made inaccessible until a decision over the legality of the material is made (this is banning, as titles are removed from where they belong following a complaint and without any actual review of said titles). Plaintiffs in the case argued the language in HB 1069 was overly broad, and in August of 2025, Judge Carlos Mendoza of the U.S. Middle District Court of Florida ruled in their favor. Mendoza stated that none of the books in the case met the definition of obscene and that they should be returned to the shelves.

It wasn’t surprising that the state filed an appeal in the case, and, in doing so, the state introduced several new titles into the complaint that weren’t part of the original case. This is also the case where we saw 20 states submit an Amicus Brief, stating that they were more than happy to participate in mass book banning. PRH v. Gibson has even broader implications, given that nearly half the country signed on with glee to the idea of banning any book they want to claim is inappropriate. The states are, naturally, those which have historically (and contemporarily, thanks to Louisiana v. Callais) disenfranchised voters–especially marginalized voters.

That case is still ongoing, following initial arguments in late April. Whatever the outcome, it has SCOTUS written all over it. PRH v. Gibson provides the opportunity for the party obsessed with thinking and talking about sex and children’s genitals to continue fixating on two things that only they are spending an unhealthy and abnormal amount of time being concerned about.+

But there’s another case right now that’s ripe for SCOTUS that’s gotten far less attention. It’s a case out of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit. The reason this case has gotten less attention is that it’s not a book banning case, so much as it is a case about the First Amendment as it relates to free speech and books. Although not about book banning, it is a case with severe implications for books in public schools.

Theis v. InterMountain Education Service District Board of Directors goes back to fall 2024, when plaintiff Rod Theis sued his then-employer, InterMountain Education Service District. The lawsuit claimed Theis’s First Amendment rights were violated when the district told him to remove a display of several books on his office desks with overt anti-trans themes.

Theis was a licensed clinical social worker in the rural Oregon district. That district allows staff to decorate their spaces–posters, quotes, art, photos, and so forth.++ At one middle school, Theis openly displayed the books He Is He and She Is She cover-out behind his desk; at another school where he worked, he displayed Johnny The Walrus by Matt Walsh.+++ All three are books with explicit anti-trans themes. According to Theis via his legal representation from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, he did so because “[he] was inspired by the message of hope for children conveyed in the books, which explain how every child should embrace and love herself as God made her to be.”

The books were up and visible when he met with students seeking his services, the titles physically visible to his clients as they spoke with him.

The school district received several complaints from parents and from educators.

While the district investigated the complaints, Theis said he “might” move the books if he knew a trans student would be coming into the office. He claimed he never intended harm by having the (hateful) books, saying the displays were not intended to be hostile.

It’s a baffling claim, and it’s one that the right would be quick to compare to library book displays for Pride. But the difference is that books on a library display are not physically standing between a librarian and a patron, and there is no understanding of the vulnerable position a user would be in were they in a private office discussing mental health issues. No display in the library represents the whole of the library’s collection, range of beliefs, or variety of materials, either. The collection represents the community’s needs and interests.

That’s not to touch on Theis’s assertion that he “might” move his display if he knew he might be seeing a trans kid. It’s not a stretch to think that there weren’t trans kids coming to see him because they knew he didn’t believe they deserved dignity or respect as full human beings.

InterMountain rightly interpreted Theis’s behavior as a violation of the school’s “Every Student Belongs” policy. InterMountain’s policy was borne of Oregon law prohibiting discrimination in schools and requiring districts to have policies addressing “bias incidents.” “Every Student Belongs” was that, and Theis received a warning that his book displays represented hostility toward gender identity, which is protected under both the law and the school’s policy. He did not lose his job, but he was told that future incidents may lead to termination.

Theis sued. At that point, a judge ruled that he could have the books in his office and that they could be on display when his office was empty. The books could stay in the office but could not be on display when students were present. In other words, he wasn’t being censored, and the books weren’t removed. He just could not have them physically sitting on his desk when engaging with students. Theis could continue to be comforted by three books with a twisted Biblical message about hating trans kids, but he could not show them off around the students that his job dictated he treat as diverse, unique, and fully human.

Two days passed.

Several students went into Theis’s office before the school day started. They were curious after the incident had garnered attention and, of course, after hearing their peers talk about it. These students asked Theis to see the books. Though he claimed to try to "redirect” the students, Theis eventually let the students look at them. According to Theis, he assumed that because this was happening before school hours, and thus it was outside his official work, letting the students look at the books would be okay. A teacher saw what was happening and reported the violation.

The district fired Theis, and the lawsuit commenced. The social worker claimed his First Amendment rights were violated because what happened–giving the anti-trans books to a group of students in his office–occurred outside his scope of duties. He believed he had the right to share his “sincerely held” religious beliefs with students, even though those beliefs not only had a political bias but also undermined the legal and ethical mandates of his work as a social worker.

This is the same philosophy propping up the “parental rights” movement in book banning–those who cry the loudest about their religious beliefs get to have the full say on where and how they treat other people who may not hold those beliefs. Their rights and freedoms are the only ones that matter.

In July of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in the case. Theis’s First Amendment rights were not, in fact, violated when he failed to comply with his district's “Every Student Belongs” policy (again, after he had already been warned and given a second chance that did not include removing the books). Here’s the full decision.

The details in this particular case align with what we’ve seen the Supreme Court and the broader conservative political movement salivate over. The actual facts of the case here won’t matter–that the display of anti-trans books by anti-trans political activists was in blatant violation of both the school and state’s anti-discrimination policy and law. What will matter is the well-oiled story of conservative victimhood and violation of “Free Speech” rights of blatant bigotry.

The current Supreme Court has already made clear in its decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor that the only rights that matter in this country when it comes to public schools are those belonging to privileged religious conservatives who hate gay people and who don’t want to have to tell that to their kids. Only adding fuel to the fire is how the slate of anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-diversity, and pro-”protect women’s sports” Executive Orders from Trump will add partisan support to the case, even though Executive Orders aren’t laws. Just look at what Rutherford County Libraries in Tennessee did earlier this year in a massive banning of LGBTQ+ books, citing Executive Orders.

Another concern in this case is that Theis’s firing was based on documentation from fellow educators. We know teachers are already bearing the weight of being called a host of cruel and inappropriate names by conservatives. We also know public school teachers have been targeted by the right to push both voucher schemes and federal legislation to revoke funding for daring to teach inclusive and accurate lessons. Oregon currently has no voucher program, and the state rejected the federal government’s offer of such a program this year.

The implications of this particular case are significant. While it’s not about school or classroom libraries specifically, it would have an immediate impact on how books in schools are acquired and shared. As has been said on repeat for over half a decade now, professionals use professional tools to make decisions about books. This ensures that materials reflect a diversity of thought, beliefs, and opinions, as well as the array of student needs. It also ensures that materials are factual and informative, not partisan or doctrinal. If that’s thrown out the window, it will be even easier for partisan “parental rights” groups and/or extremist organizations (including religious ones) to demand their books be put in these institutions. They’ll use “parental rights” as a cudgel in this case, the same way they have everywhere else. How dare a social worker not be allowed to share his sincerely held religious rights in the workplace? He serves in loco parentis, and, well, we agree with his anti-trans beliefs.

Not to mention that this would be easy for the right to twist into a new mandate: classrooms and schools must display books “countering” LGBTQ+ people. Just as in some states, it’s now required that the 10 Commandments be in a visible place in every public classroom, it isn’t a stretch to believe a case like this could lead to requiring “alternate” perspectives to create “neutrality” of opinion. If you don’t like it as a parent, remember that you don’t have to send your kids to public schools–that’s what vouchers are for!

They build the infrastructure, cry victim, then benefit in every way possible from the structures they’ve built. Doing irreparable harm to marginalized children–especially BIPOC, queer, and trans kids–is what they prioritize and what they value.

This case, whether or not it’s appealed to the Supreme Court, is yet another sterling example of the double standard when it comes to censorship. When books are actually removed from student access in school and public libraries and when state politicians demand schools remove thousands of books on a list curated by a conservative “activist,” it’s not censorship. It’s also not a violation of other people’s First Amendment rights. It’s “curation” and “parental rights.” It’s “protecting” the children.

But when a school social worker displays blatantly anti-trans books in his office, gets told that it is in violation of policy and law about discrimination in schools, and does it again anyway, we have on our hands a First Amendment crisis.

History won’t look back kindly on this moment, and it shouldn’t. But we can’t depend upon history to do the work in pointing out how conservatives are far less mature than the children they claim to be trying to “protect.” We can’t name all of the ways in which they’ve created a system of cruelty and injustice to steal and grift. The only way they retain power is through lying, cheating, stealing, and then crying about it. Erasure of anything that isn’t a reflection of white supremacy takes priority above anything else.

Once again, the right fails to see or acknowledge that young people are autonomous and deserve respect and dignity. Young people deserve adults who see and care for them as fellow human beings, not pawns in a political war they never asked for.

Notes:

+We should also be keeping a close eye on Crookshanks, et al. v. Elizabeth School District in the 10th Circuit. This case has gotten some more press recently because two conservative law firms joined in defending the school district’s right to ban books. One of those firms? The Heritage Foundation. Crookshanks also cites Little v. Llano County as justification for the school district's right to remove books.

++This is something that we’re seeing more schools pass policies against. However, the policies aren’t broad. They’re specifically targeting any classroom, office, or building decorations with rainbows because rainbows are only about gay people. See Detroit Lakes, Minnesota's, decision from this week.

+++In the earlier years of the current censorship era, this was a particularly popular title for the right to claim libraries were censoring. It’s a title that mocks trans people and was referenced several times when Illinois passed the first anti-book ban law–conservatives claimed libraries wouldn’t buy this precious book, and thus, they were subject to a ban that was not legal. It’s always something, and that something is rarely nuanced or factual.