What Happened in Alianza Translatinx v. City of Huntington Beach?

In the summer of 1982, two major things happened, censorship-wise. One was the Supreme Court’s decision in Island Trees v. Pico, a book ban case that had begun in a school district in Long Island, New York. The district removed eleven books from its libraries and curricula, and a group of five students—four high schoolers and one in junior high—sued in response. The court ruled that the removals were improper. It is still the only book ban case ever heard by the US Supreme Court.

The second thing that happened had its origins on the other side of the country from Long Island—Anaheim, California. Attendees of that year’s American Booksellers Association convention noticed a huge metal cage containing stacks of five hundred or so books. A sign hung over the cage with a warning: “Caution! Some People Consider These Books Dangerous.” The exhibit got a lot of attention, so much so it led to another idea: the creation of Banned Books Week, which is still celebrated annually.

Now, more than four decades later, California is again in the news vis-à-vis banned books. On September 5, in the case of Alianza Translatinx v. City of Huntington Beach, a state court ruled against the city, forestalling its effort to restrict access to a number of books in the city’s public libraries.

Sign the pledge to vote for libraries!

Restricted access? To books? In California? The Golden State is reliably Democratic, with 45 percent of voters members of that party. Even here, however, the nationwide rise in banned books has made inroads, with conservative communities clashing with the more liberal state government.

One of those communities is Huntington Beach. In October 2023, the city council passed Resolution No. 2023–41, which stated, “No City Library or other City facility shall allow children ready access to books and other materials that contain any content of sexual nature.” Furthermore, the resolution required “[p]arental or guardian consent . . . before accessing or checking out any book or other material that contains any . . . sexual content by anyone under 18-years of age.” The resolution also created a “community parent/guardian review board” to review potential children’s book acquisitions.

It was not a popular measure. Of the nearly seven hundred people who spoke or emailed about the resolution, over 90 percent were against it. Yet the resolution passed by a vote of 4–3.

A year later, in September 2024, the resolution hit another stumbling block when Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Freedom to Read Act (FTRA), one of a handful of so-called anti-book-ban laws. Since 2023, eight other states—Colorado, ­Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, ­Vermont, and Washington—have passed such bills. 

The California law prohibited libraries from rejecting library materials “because of the topic addressed” by those materials “or because of the views, ideas, or opinions” they contain. It also prevented library employees “from being subject to termination, demotion, discipline, or retaliation” for acquiring, or refusing to remove, a library material “before it has been reviewed in accordance with the public library’s process for reconsideration of library materials.”

Take action today to support libraries!

Five months later, in February 2025, three Huntington Beach residents, aided by the nonprofit Alianza Translatinx, sued city leaders for violating the FTRA. Specifically, the complaint mentioned the library’s relocation to a restricted area of

• “children’s picture books” (e.g., Everyone Poops by Taro Gomi);
• “books on general science and health education” (e.g., Sex Is a Funny Word: A Book about Bodies, Feelings, and YOU by Cory Silverberg and Fiona Smyth, which won a Stonewell Book Award in 2016); and
• “books containing parenting advice” (e.g, Talking to Your Kids About Sex: From Toddlers to Preteens by Lauri Berkenkamp and Steven C. Atkins).

In its defense, the city made all kinds of arguments: that it hadn’t actually implemented Resolution 2023–41, so there was no harm; that a later ordinance implementing the community parent-guardian review board was repealed, making the resolution moot; and that the FTRA was unconstitutional because it prevented parents from restricting their children’s access to unfavored materials.

The court rejected all these arguments. In particular, Judge Lindsey Martinez pointed out that “the FTRA does not abridge parental rights because it prohibits library jurisdictions—not parents—from restricting minors’ access to library materials.” Parents, the court acknowledged, “remain free to stop their children from using the library or reading certain books.”

This is an important concession. So-called parents’ bills of rights have been passed in a number of states in recent years. These bills, among other things, empower parents to review their children’s school assignments, classroom materials, library checkouts, and more.

Sign the petition to fight book bans!

Critics contend that such bills are the wolf of censorship wrapped in the sheep’s clothing of concerned parenting. Yet no one would argue that parents should be less involved in their children’s education. The authors of the FTRA focused their proscriptions on the government, believing that, while parents are responsible for guiding their child’s intellectual journey, elected officials play a lesser role. California legislators were right to recognize this dichotomy.

Rulings like that of Judge Martinez are possible because of Island Trees v. Pico, a precarious case whose core idea—that schools may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when removing library books—has nevertheless held over four decades. The Supreme Court is now considering a case, Little v. Llano County, that could upend that ruling.

Will the nine justices uphold Pico? Overturn it? Or stake out some middle ground? Librarians everywhere await their decision.

Visit www.everylibrary.org to learn more about our work on behalf of libraries. 

#librarymarketers: Enjoy this story? Want to use it for your library newsletter, blog, or social media? This article is published under Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International and is free to edit and use with attribution. Please cite EveryLibrary on medium.com/everylibrary.

This work by EveryLibrary is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0