The Undergraduate Law Review at UC San Diego

Several pieces of legislation have sprung up in recent years in Florida aiming to restrict public school library books and curricular materials. Notably, this coincides with other state legislative moves to restrict what students read and learn in school with partisan purposes. Library associations have reported that nationally, removed books disproportionately contain LGBTQ and racial minority themes. One law at the heart of these restrictions, Florida HB 1467 (2022), empowers community members to challenge and remove public school books and adds bureaucratic obstacles to the access of previously allowable materials. The vague and broad language of the Florida law leads to erratic application by school districts across the state, resulting in the suppression of protected speech. This article examines a key constitutional tension: Under what circumstances does the students’ right to receive information under the First Amendment outweigh school officials’ authority, and, by extension, parental authority over local education under the Tenth Amendment? The U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982) offers one answer, holding that political orthodoxy is an unacceptable rationale for removal, but pervasive vulgarity and educational unsuitability are acceptable. These three standards are useful, yet entangle in ways Pico is not fully suited to address. This article argues HB 1467 (2022) is unconstitutional under the political orthodoxy Pico standard, strict scrutiny analysis of content-based regulations, and the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the 1st Amendment.