(Originally posted on Citizens for a New Louisiana) — In a decision that could reshape the ongoing battle over public libraries in Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former members of the St. Tammany Library Board of Control. The ruling vacates an earlier district court decision and orders the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Most readers would know that as “lack of standing.” We often believe these rulings are an escape-hatch for Judges who don’t want to wade into controversial waters. However, this case may challenge that preconceived notion.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy began in June 2022 when certain library content policies led to the relocation of sexually explicit books to age-appropriate sections. Activists, primarily those opposing such policies, described these actions as “book bans”—despite acknowledging that no books were removed from circulation. Even the book ban queen, Amanda Jones, recently admitted that Louisiana has no outright bans. The challenges have been mostly about where certain books should be appropriately shelved within the facility.

However, the debate escalated when attorney David Cougle co-founded the St. Tammany Library Accountability Project (STLAP) to advocate for stricter content policies. His critics framed the dispute around “gender identity and sexual orientation.” However, the primary concern expressed by Cougle and his supporters was the presence of sexually explicit material in sections specifically designated for children to explore freely.

Cougle later ran for and won a seat on the St. Tammany Parish Council, where he proposed restructuring the St. Tammany Library Board. The Council ultimately passed a resolution vacating all six board positions, citing improper staggering of board terms as required under Louisiana law. A new set of board members was then appointed, with only one prior member reappointed.

Lawsuit and Court Ruling

Three ousted board members—Anthony Parr, Rebecca Taylor, and Bill McHugh III—filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their removal constituted viewpoint discrimination, free speech retaliation, and substantive due process violations. They sought an injunction to prevent the resolution from taking effect.

However, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. The court found that:

• The plaintiffs had not suffered a particularized injury, as the resolution vacated the entire board, not just specific members.
• Their removal was an institutional action affecting all board members equally, rather than an individualized punishment.
• Their alleged reputational harm was not directly traceable to the Council’s resolution but instead arose from public and media discourse.
• The relief sought—blocking the resolution—would not redress their reputational concerns.

Court Rebukes Plaintiffs’ Claims

The court issued a particularly stinging rebuke of the plaintiffs’ arguments, stating that their lawsuit was less about constitutional rights and more about regaining political influence over library policy.

“At its core, this case is not about viewpoint discrimination, free speech, retaliation, or substantive due process. Plaintiffs lost their Board positions and thereby lost the power to wield the levers of influence over St. Tammany’s libraries—and they want that control back. But rather than pursue that aim through the political process, they have dragged that fight into federal court by tricking it out in constitutional colors.”

This statement undercuts the plaintiffs’ narrative that they were victims of retaliation for their views and affirms that their removal was a procedural correction, not a punitive action.

Plaintiffs Respond to the Ruling

Following the decision, the three former St. Tammany Library Board members issued a joint statement expressing their disappointment. They emphasized that the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, meaning the court did not rule whether their First Amendment and due process claims had merit.

“We are disappointed that the appeals court ordered our case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and did not resolve the claims of legislative privilege raised by defendants,” the statement reads. “Defendants asserted legislative privilege in this case to hide evidence that demonstrates the merits of plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs lost their positions on the St. Tammany Parish Library Board because members of the Parish Council disfavored their views on certain library materials.”

The plaintiffs further described the ruling as a loss for libraries and their communities, arguing that St. Tammany library board members should be able to serve “without fear of retaliation and discrimination” for defending the public’s right to access information.

Implications of the Decision

The appellate court dismissed the case, so the St. Tammany Parish Council’s restructuring of the Library Board stands. The ruling also sets a precedent for how courts view viewpoint discrimination claims in cases where a governing body replaces an entire board rather than targeting individual members.

The court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ claims also reaffirms that political disputes over library policies should be resolved through elections, not litigation. The ruling dismantled the notion that restructuring the St. Tammany Library Board was an act of censorship, making clear that the Council’s actions were within its legal authority.

The plaintiffs still have the option of petitioning for a rehearing or escalating the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, though it remains unclear whether they will do so.