Activity in Litigation Against Autauga-Prattville Public Library Policies

After several months of little movement, there has been notable progress in the legal battle concerning the restrictive policies at the Autauga-Prattville Public Library.

By October 2024, US District Judge Myron Thompson had received a complete overview of the case, involving the Alliance of Appl Patrons, Free Alabama, and the Alabama Library Association. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to restore certain materials to the shelves while the case unfolds.

Yet, the situation changed again when Alabama Public Library Services informed the Prattville Library Committee that their current policy was unclear and, therefore, did not meet new state aid criteria. The notification suggested adding a statement to the policy that reads:

“There is no book or material in the Children’s section that contains obscene or sexually explicit content or any other content deemed inappropriate for children or young people.”

While Thompson deliberates, attorney Brian Thomas communicated to the plaintiff’s lawyers his perspective that the court should be made aware of the ongoing developments. He argued that the potential loss of state funding significantly impacts the “balance of harm” in this case.

In December 2024, the plaintiff notified the court representing the defendant, leading to a stagnation in the case. However, in June, Thompson addressed the lawsuit again, asking whether the recent policy revisions necessitate amended complaints.

The involved parties seem to agree that amendments are unnecessary.

“This one letter is yet another instance of the same overloaded, vague, and discriminatory language that the plaintiff has previously addressed,” the plaintiff’s lawyer asserted. “If anything, the additional sentence only limits access to materials that some may view as obscene or inappropriate for young audiences.”

The plaintiff’s legal team contends that the board’s adherence to APLS guidelines for state funding does not absolve them of accountability.

“The Board has not demonstrated that it is impossible to simultaneously follow the APLS rules and uphold constitutional rights. As we’ve pointed out before, APLS decides what is ‘sexually explicit’ or ‘inappropriate for children and young people’ at the discretion of the Library Board. This change doesn’t alter that definition. If APLS blames the board’s unconstitutional stance, the request isn’t about avoiding liability completely; it’s about shedding APL as a defendant. Still, they haven’t chosen that path. Even if the board is correct regarding APLS requirements, laws regarding stock balances clearly indicate that the board cannot justify enforcing unconstitutional laws.”

Even though the Appl Board has urged Thompson to recognize more policy changes, the response this Wednesday did not seek an amended complaint.

If an amendment is required, it could lead to further litigation, which has been ongoing for over a year.

“The plaintiff has been enduring a deprivation of First Amendment rights for 17 months,” the plaintiff’s lawyer pointed out. “If that clock resets, and the Board continues to ignore the need to correct unconstitutional policies, it would further contribute to the irreparable harm suffered by the plaintiffs.”