Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No 26 v. Pico

Decision Date25 June 1982
Docket NumberNo. 80-2043,80-2043
Citation102 S.Ct. 2799,73 L.Ed.2d 435,457 U.S. 853
PartiesBOARD OF EDUCATION, ISLAND TREES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 26 et al., Petitioners, v. Steven A. PICO, by his next friend Frances Pico et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner Board of Education, rejecting recommendations of a committee of parents and school staff that it had appointed, ordered that certain books, which the Board characterized as "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Sem[i]tic, and just plain filthy," be removed from high school and junior high school libraries. Respondent students then brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board and petitioner Board members, alleging that the Board's actions had denied respondents their rights under the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment in petitioners' favor. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits of respondents' allegations.

Held : The judgment is affirmed.

638 F.2d 404, affirmed.

Justice BRENNAN, joined by Justice MARSHALL and Justice STEVENS, concluded:

1. The First Amendment imposes limitations upon a local school board's exercise of its discretion to remove books from high school and junior high school libraries. Pp. 863-872.

(a) Local school boards have broad discretion in the management of school affairs, but such discretion must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment. Students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731, and such rights may be directly and sharply implicated by the removal of books from the shelves of a school library. While students' First Amendment rights must be construed "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," ibid., the special characteristics of the school library make that environment especially appropriate for the recognition of such rights. Pp. 863-869.

(b) While petitioners might rightfully claim absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values in schools, petitioners' reliance upon that duty is misplaced where they attempt to extend their claim of absolute discretion beyond the compulsory environment of the classroom into the school library and the regime of voluntary inquiry that there holds sway. P. 869.

(c) Petitioners possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries, but that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. Whether petitioners' removal of books from the libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries 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." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1187, 87 L.Ed. 1628. If such an intention was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. Pp. 869-872

2. The evidentiary materials before the District Court must be construed favorably to respondents, given the procedural posture of this case. When so construed, those evidentiary materials raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether petitioners exceeded constitutional limitations in exercising their discretion to remove the books at issue from their school libraries. Respondents' allegations, and some of the evidentiary materials before the District Court, also fail to exclude the possibility that petitioners' removal procedures were highly irregular and ad hoc—the antithesis of those procedures that might tend to allay suspicions regarding petitioners' motivation. Pp. 872-875.

Justice BLACKMUN concluded that a proper balance between the limited constitutional restriction imposed on school officials by the First Amendment and the broad state authority to regulate education, would be struck by holding that school officials may not remove books from school libraries for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in the books, when that action is motivated simply by the officials' disapproval of the ideas involved. Pp. 879-882.

Justice WHITE, while agreeing that there should be a trial to resolve the factual issues, concluded that there is no necessity at this point for discussing the extent to which the First Amendment limits the school board's discretion to remove books from the school libraries. Pp. 883-884.

George W. Lipp, Jr., Babylon, N. Y., for petitioners.

Alan H. Levine, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York City, for respondents.

Justice BRENNAN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice MARSHALL and Justice STEVENS joined, and in which Justice BLACKMUN joined except for Part II-A-(1).

The principal question presented is whether the First Amendment 1 imposes limitations upon the exercise by a local school board of its discretion to remove library books from high school and junior high school libraries.

I

Petitioners are the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, in New York, and Richard Ahrens, Frank Martin, Christina Fasulo, Patrick Hughes, Richard Melchers, Richard Michaels, and Louis Nessim. When this suit was brought, Ahrens was the President of the Board, Martin was the Vice President, and the remaining petitioners were Board members. The Board is a state agency charged with responsibility for the operation and administration of the public schools within the Island Trees School District, including the Island Trees High School and Island Trees Memorial Junior High School. Respondents are Steven Pico, Jacqueline Gold, Glenn Yarris, Russell Rieger, and Paul Sochinski. When this suit was brought, Pico, Gold, Yarris, and Rieger were students at the High School, and Sochinski was a student at the Junior High School.

In September 1975, petitioners Ahrens, Martin, and Hughes attended a conference sponsored by Parents of New York United (PONYU), a politically conservative organization of parents concerned about education legislation in the State of New York. At the conference these petitioners obtained lists of books described by Ahrens as "objectionable," App. 22, and by Martin as "improper fare for school students," id., at 101.2 It was later determined that the High School library contained nine of the listed books, and that another listed book was in the Junior High School library.3 In February 1976, at a meeting with the Superintendent of Schools and the Principals of the High School and Junior High School, the Board gave an "unofficial direction" that the listed books be removed from the library shelves and delivered to the Board's offices, so that Board members could read them.4 When this directive was carried out, it became publicized, and the Board issued a press release justifying its action. It characterized the removed books as "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Sem[i]tic, and just plain filthy," and concluded that "[i]t is our duty, our moral obligation, to protect the children in our schools from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers." 474 F.Supp. 387, 390 (EDNY 1979).

A short time later, the Board appointed a "Book Review Committee," consisting of four Island Trees parents and four members of the Island Trees schools staff, to read the listed books and to recommend to the Board whether the books should be retained, taking into account the books' "educational suitability," "good taste," "relevance," and "appropriateness to age and grade level." In July, the Committee made its final report to the Board, recommending that five of the listed books be retained 5 and that two others be removed from the school libraries.6 As for the remaining four books, the Committee could not agree on two,7 took no position on one,8 and recommended that the last book be made available to students only with parental approval.9 The Board substantially rejected the Committee's report later that month, deciding that only one book should be returned to the High School library without restriction,10 that another should be made available subject to parental approval,11 but that the remaining nine books should "be removed from elementary and secondary libraries and [from] use in the curriculum." Id., at 391.12 The Board gave no reasons for rejecting the recommendations of the Committee that it had appointed.

Respondents reacted to the Board's decision by bringing the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. They alleged that petitioners had

"ordered the removal of the books from school libraries and proscribed their use in the curriculum because particular passages in the books offended their social, politi- cal and moral tastes and not because the books, taken as a whole, were lacking in educational value." App. 4.

Respondents claimed that the Board's actions denied them their rights under the First Amendment. They asked the court for a declaration that the Board's actions were unconstitutional, and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering the Board to return the nine books to the school libraries and to refrain from interfering with the use of those books in the schools' curricula. Id., at 5-6.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of petitioners. 474 F.Supp. 387 (1979). In the court's view, "the parties substantially agree[d] about the motivation behind the board's actions," id., at 391—namely, that

"the board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
442 cases
  • Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 03-4433 (JCL).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • November 5, 2003
    ...afforded is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both."); Board of Educ., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982) ("[T]he Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas."); Lamont v. Postma......
  • Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. v. Rumsfeld, CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-4433 (JCL) (D. N.J. 11/5/2003)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • November 5, 2003
    .... . . the protection afforded is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both."); Board of Educ., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982) ("[T]he Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas."); Lamont v. Postmaster Genera......
  • Bonnichsen v. U.S., Dept. of Army
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • June 27, 1997
    ...85 S.Ct. 1678, 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (information about contraceptives); Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982) (right of students to read books deemed "vulgar" or "anti-American" by Board of Educati......
  • Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • March 15, 2021
    ...2008) (citing Pico v. Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 , 638 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1980), aff'd , 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982) ), and are referred to as Plaintiff's First Amendment Claims.14 For a more complete discussion of the April 2018 Guidance ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Golan v Holder: How Many Supreme Court Justices Does It Take To Remove Crayons From The Free Speech Crayon Box?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 16, 2011
    ...predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom." Bd. Of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982). For the petitioners, Article 18 of the Berne Convention and the URAA, which adopts its terms, remove a massive swath of an intellectua......
  • PEN, Penguin Random House, Parents And Authors Fight Florida Book Ban
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 24, 2023
    ...I don't have to read a smut book all the way from the very beginning to the very end." As the Supreme Court found in Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), while school administrators "possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries," that "discretion m......
  • CAS Legal Mailbag – 3/27/23
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • April 27, 2023
    ...exercise their oversight over curriculum in a partisan way. In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1982), a plurality of the United States Supreme Court overturned a board’s action in removing books from the school library, stating:......
  • CAS Legal Mailbag ' 3/27/23
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 11, 2023
    ...exercise their oversight over curriculum in a partisan way. In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1982), a plurality of the United States Supreme Court overturned a board's action in removing books from the school library, Local sc......
24 books & journal articles
  • The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-3, March 2012
    • March 1, 2012
    ...v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 5......
  • The Education-Democracy Nexus and Educational Subordination
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 111-3, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...of the roots of the civility framework endorsed in Fraser and Hazelwood , inter alia , see Feldman, supra note 179, at 1007–10. 186. 457 U.S. 853, 855–56 (1982) (plurality opinion). 187. Id. at 868–69, 872. 188. Id. at 864, 869. 2023] THE EDUCATION–DEMOCRACY NEXUS 557 down a street in front......
  • Filth, filtering, and the First Amendment: ruminations on public libraries' use of Internet filtering software.
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 53 No. 2, March 2001
    • March 1, 2001
    ...not interfere with a willing speaker's liberty). (80.) Lamont, 381 U.S. at 308 (Brennan, J., concurring); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982); Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 32 n.22 (81.) 457 U.S. 853. (82.) Id. at 912. (83.) Pico, 457 U.S. at 867 (plurality opinion......
  • "THIS WEARISOME ANALYSIS": THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST FROM SCHENCK TO BRANDENBURG.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 66 No. 3, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...U.S. 742, 761 (2010); City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 45 n.1 (1994); Bd. of Educ, Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 856 n.l (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 599, n.2 (Stewart, J., concurring) (1980); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Chapter 808, HB 900 – Relating to the regulation of library materials sold to or included in public school libraries
    • United States
    • Texas Session Laws
    • January 1, 2023
    ...vendor; or (iii) library material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable as referenced in Pico v. Board of Education, 457 U.S. 853 (1982);, 457 U.S. 853 (1982); (B) recognizes that obscene content is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (C)......
  • Texas Register, Volume 48, Number 43, October 27, 2023
    • United States
    • Texas Register
    • Invalid date
    ...Code, §35.002, or library material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable as referenced in Pico v. Board of Education, 457 U.S. 853 (C) Recognize that obscene content is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (D) Apply to all library material......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT