A group of major book publishers, including Penguin Random House and HarperCollins, filed a federal lawsuit against Florida’s House Bill 1069, arguing that the law’s vague and broad restrictions on literary content have led to unconstitutional book removals.
Some of the world’s largest book publishers, including Penguin Random House and HarperCollins filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday, challenging recent legislation that they argue has led to the unconstitutional removal of books from school libraries.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, the lawsuit contends that House Bill 1069, passed in 2023 infringes on First Amendment rights by imposing restrictions on literary content that are both vague and excessively broad. The plaintiffs—among them Macmillan Publishing Group, Simon & Schuster, Sourcebooks, and individual authors like John Green, Jodi Picoult, and Angie Thomas—assert that the law mandates the removal of books based on subjective criteria without adequately considering the literary merit of the works as a whole.
The lawsuit names several members of the Florida State Board of Education as defendants, including Chair Ben Gibson, Vice Chair Ryan Petty, and board members Esther Byrd, Grazie P. Christie, Kelly Garcia, and MaryLynn Magar. The list of defendants also includes members of the Orange County and Volusia County School Boards, such as Teresa Jacobs and Jamie Haynes.
“These books are timeless classics, renowned for their literary value,” reads the complaint. “Many of them have won awards or are bestsellers. They have been on the shelves of school libraries for years, and they are not remotely obscene. But Florida has required these books and others to be removed from school libraries under its broad, across-the-board, content-based mandates that forbid consideration of the books’ value.”
The lawsuit specifically targets provisions of the law that demand the removal of books describing “sexual conduct” or those deemed “pornographic.” The plaintiffs argue that the terms are not clearly defined, leading to inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement.
“The term ‘describes sexual conduct’ is vague and ambiguous… The term ‘pornographic’—as construed by the State Board—provides no easily understood line as to which types of statements in a book are sufficient to require its removal as ‘pornographic,’” the complaint states.
This lack of clarity, the plaintiffs say, has resulted in the removal of numerous significant literary works that are neither obscene nor inappropriate, many of which have long been included in school curricula.
The complaint cites several examples of books that have been removed from Florida school libraries under the new law, including Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, and Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. The plaintiffs argue that these books, “timeless classics, renowned for their literary value,” have been unjustly removed, serving as an infringement on students’ rights to access information.
Upon contact, communications representatives for the Florida Department of Education rejected the notion that there are book bans in the state.
“This is a stunt,” The Capitolist was told. “There are no books banned in Florida. Sexually explicit material and instruction are not suitable for schools.”
The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the contested provisions are unconstitutional and request an injunction to halt further enforcement of the law, which they argue has fostered a “culture of fear” among educators, leading to preemptive censorship by teachers and media specialists who fear potential penalties for non-compliance.
Furthermore, the lawsuit challenges the process by which books are removed from school libraries, arguing that it lacks adequate safeguards to ensure decisions are made fairly and based on a thorough evaluation of the books’ content.
Under House Bill 1069, books must be removed within five school days of an objection, even if the objection has not been evaluated, and may remain unavailable indefinitely. The plaintiffs contend that this process effectively results in book bans without due process, incentivizing school districts to remove books preemptively to avoid the costs and burdens of resolving objections.