Federal judge strikes down key part of Florida law leading to school book removals
South Florida Sun Sentinel - Gift LinkU.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza issued a 50-page decision in a First Amendment lawsuit filed last year against members of the State Board of Education and the school boards in Orange and Volusia counties. He focused primarily on part of the law that seeks to prevent the availability of reading material that “describes sexual conduct.”
The Orlando-based judge wrote that the law “does not evaluate the work to determine if it has any holistic value” and “does not specify what level of detail ‘describes sexual conduct.’”
“As plaintiffs note, it is unclear what the statute actually prohibits,” Mendoza wrote. “It might forbid material that states characters ‘spent the night together’ or ‘made love.’ Perhaps not. Defendants do not attempt to explain how the statute should work.”
He added that the Florida Department of Education directed educators to “err on the side of caution,” which resulted in books being removed because of fears school districts would be punished.
BREAKING: Federal court blocks and limits most of Florida law targeting school library books.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-08-13T21:57:04.395Z
The only constitutional application is its "harmful to minors" provision, which limits obscene material that had already been banned from school libraries.
More to come at Law Dork: www.lawdork.com
Here is Judge Carlos Mendoza's nuanced opinion. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-08-13T22:06:48.090Z
It finds the "sexual conduct" provision unconstitutional and interprets the "pornographic" provision as "synonymous" with the "harmful to minors" provision (that's Section 847.012) — so covering nothing more:
This is a big victory, but it hinges on a few decisions from Mendoza that are likely going to face a more skeptical Eleventh Circuit — particularly his finding that the actions resulting from the law don’t constitute government speech.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-08-13T22:21:19.200Z
I think he’s right, and he does a good job with it, but.
Also, I should note that he relied a dozen times on the May decision from an Eleventh Circuit panel upholding the injunction against the anti-drag law.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-08-13T22:25:54.761Z
There is a request pending for the Eleventh Circuit to hear that appeal en banc (by the full court). So, there is some slippery surface there.