A federal judge on Wednesday concluded the Elizabeth School District likely violated the First Amendment rights of students and authors by removing 19 books from school libraries because the topics conflicted with the school board’s conservative vision.

U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney granted a preliminary injunction ordering the district to return the books to library shelves and refrain from banning further books the district disagrees with on ideological grounds.

“Plaintiffs have shown that the District removed the 19 books based on the authors’ and books’ content and viewpoints on issues such as race, sexual orientation, gender identity, LGBTQ content, and to promote the Board’s self-proclaimed ‘conservative values,'” wrote Sweeney, Colorado’s first openly gay federal judge, in a March 19 order.

Although the school board members in the Elbert County district each submitted detailed statements to the court disputing that they voted to restrict access to the books based on their personal politics, Sweeney pointed out their emails to each other at the time clearly referenced political motivations.

In December, the parents of two district students, the local NAACP chapter and The Authors Guild — representing authors of the removed books — sued the district alleging a violation of the First Amendment and its counterpart provision of the Colorado Constitution.

The district in 2024 created a committee to compile a list of books with “sensitive” topics, which included “sexual content,” “religious viewpoints,” and “racism/discrimination.” After identifying 19 books, including “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini and “Beloved” by Toni Morrison, the district placed them in the school board’s office for approximately three weeks.

During that time, parents could fill out forms explaining why they wanted the books to either be “returned to the library and listed on the sensitive topic list” — meaning parents would get an alert if their child checked out the book — or “removed from the library collection.” There was no option to restore the books to libraries unconditionally.

Although the district received comments from parents supportive of the books, others noted their opposition with reasons including:

• “violent + depravity of Islam is on display”

• “evil trans ideology”

• “supports abortion”

• “very biased, leftist book”

• “morally offensive content for most religious people”

Emails between board members suggested they were thinking about the book removals in political terms. Board President Rhonda Olsen wrote that “We were very vocal about getting a superintendent and legal representation with conservative values.” Vice President Heather Booth wrote that “As an elected official committed to conservative values for our children, I feel a strong obligation to honor the promises made during my campaign.”

The plaintiffs, as a result, alleged the board’s decision to remove the books was based in politics.

“I feel like I’m only allowed to look at books that have been pre-approved by people with their own political agenda,” wrote C.C., a minor student represented by her parent, Kristen Crookshanks. “I get that some parents don’t want their kids to read about difficult topics like racism, violence, drugs, or sex. But some kids are dealing with these things in their own lives, and in my experience, it has been helpful to read stories I can relate to.”

Sweeney, a Joe Biden appointee, slammed the district in her order for making “factually incorrect statements” and objections that “lack any legal basis.” As for the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success, Sweeney believed they presented strong evidence that their First Amendment rights were violated.

“The District’s argument — that its decisions as to the library contents are government speech immune from First Amendment scrutiny — finds little support in the caselaw,” she wrote. “Courts generally hold that the placement and removal of books in public school libraries is not government speech.”

Sweeney noted the U.S. Supreme Court has not squarely issued a precedent-setting decision on the subject, but she believed a 1982 ruling allowed her to look to the district’s stated motivations for removing the books. Based on board members’ own comments about remaining faithful to their conservative campaign pledges, Sweeney opted to take the board members at their word.

“The Court questions what could be more partisan or political than removing books to further the Board’s self-described conservative values,” wrote Sweeney. “That parents want to remove books for partisan reasons does not permit government officials to do the same.”

She added that her order did not affect the district’s curriculum, nor did it prevent the district from removing books based on “legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

The case is Crookshanks et al. v. Elizabeth School District.