The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an amended opinion Tuesday reversing a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against Idaho's Children's School and Library Protection Act, a controversial law that restricts access to books and materials deemed harmful to minors in schools and public libraries.
In *Northwest Association of Independent Schools v. Labrador*, the three-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on their First Amendment overbreadth claims to warrant blocking enforcement of H.B. 710 while the litigation proceeds. The court remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho for further proceedings.
The case arose from a challenge brought by the Northwest Association of Independent Schools and several of its member institutions, including Sun Valley Community School and Foothills School of Arts and Sciences. The plaintiffs also include Community Library Association, Collister United Methodist Church, and several parents acting on behalf of their minor children.
Defendants in the case include Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador and prosecutors from Ada and Blaine counties who would be responsible for enforcing the law's criminal penalties.
Idaho's Children's School and Library Protection Act, enacted as H.B. 710, prohibits schools and public libraries from making certain content available to minors that state officials deem harmful. The law includes criminal penalties for violations, creating potential liability for librarians, teachers, and school administrators who provide access to restricted materials.
The plaintiffs argued that the statute violates the First Amendment through overbroad restrictions on speech and expression. They contended that the law's vague definitions and broad scope would lead to censorship of constitutionally protected materials and chill free speech rights in educational settings.
District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding insufficient likelihood of success on the merits to justify blocking enforcement of the state law. However, the Ninth Circuit panel disagreed with this assessment.
The appeals court opinion was written by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., with Circuit Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Holly A. Thomas joining the decision. The panel heard oral arguments in Portland, Oregon, on Nov. 3, 2025, and initially filed its opinion on Jan. 29, 2026, before issuing an amended version on Feb. 12, 2026.
The reversal represents a victory for free speech advocates and educational institutions that argued Idaho's law would force them to remove books and materials from their collections based on subjective determinations of what constitutes harmful content. Independent schools and libraries expressed concern that the law's broad language could encompass classic literature, health education materials, and age-appropriate discussions of social issues.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between parental rights advocates who support content restrictions and educators and librarians who argue such laws constitute government censorship. Similar legislation has been enacted in multiple states, with varying outcomes in federal courts.
Idaho officials defended the law as a reasonable measure to protect children from inappropriate sexual content and other materials deemed harmful to minors. They argued that parents have the right to control what their children access in educational settings and that the state has a compelling interest in protecting minors from harmful content.
The Ninth Circuit's decision focuses specifically on the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, which allows courts to invalidate laws that sweep too broadly and restrict protected speech along with unprotected expression. Courts apply heightened scrutiny to content-based restrictions on speech, particularly in educational contexts where academic freedom concerns are paramount.
The preliminary injunction ordered by the appeals court will prevent Idaho from enforcing the criminal penalties and other provisions of H.B. 710 against the plaintiffs while the case proceeds through the district court on the merits. This means affected schools and libraries can continue providing access to materials that might otherwise be restricted under the state law.
The decision could influence similar cases challenging book restriction laws in other states. Federal courts have reached varying conclusions on the constitutionality of such measures, with some finding First Amendment violations while others have upheld certain restrictions as within states' authority to regulate educational content.
Legal experts note that the Ninth Circuit's reversal suggests the appeals court views Idaho's law as particularly problematic from a First Amendment perspective. The court's finding that plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on their overbreadth claims indicates skepticism about the law's constitutional validity.
The case will now return to the district court for further proceedings on the merits, where both sides will present evidence and arguments about whether Idaho's Children's School and Library Protection Act violates constitutional protections for free speech and expression in educational settings.
The outcome could have implications for how states balance parental rights concerns with constitutional protections for academic freedom and free speech in schools and libraries. As similar legislation continues to advance in state legislatures nationwide, federal court decisions like this one will help establish the constitutional boundaries for content restrictions in educational institutions.