U.S. v. American Library Ass’n

Citation: United States v. American Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

Factual Background
The origins of the Children’s Internet Protection Act &mdash; commonly referred to as “CIPA” &mdash; can be traced to efforts by Congress to help public libraries provide Internet access to their patrons. To do this, Congress created two financial aid programs: one entitles libraries to buy Internet access at a discount; the other pays for libraries to acquire computers for Internet access.

Libraries of course were delighted with these financial aid programs &mdash; but not with one of the conditions they had to satisfy, in order to qualify for aid. In an effort to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit websites while they or others were using library computers, CIPA requires libraries to use filtering software in order to be eligible to receive financial aid under either of these programs.

The problem with filtering software is that it doesn’t work perfectly: it filters out some websites that are not sexually explicit and are perfectly acceptable, even for children; and it fails to filter out some pornographic sites, even though that’s what filtering software is supposed to do. For this reason, many libraries do not want to use filtering software. Many library patrons and website publishers don’t want them to, either. As a result, the American Library Association spearheaded a lawsuit in which libraries, patrons and website publishers challenged the CIPA’s constitutionality.

Trial Court Decision
At first, the challengers were successful. A three-judge district court ruled that because filtering software blocks access to some websites that are not sexually explicit, and because there are other ways to protect children using library computers to access the Internet, CIPA was overbroad and thus unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court, however, reversed. One fact was critical for the six Justices who found CIPA to be constitutional. CIPA allows libraries to unblock specific websites, or even to disable the filtering software entirely on a specific computer, at the request of a patron.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist (in an opinion joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) ruled that even if filtering software erroneously blocks acceptable websites, “concerns [about over blocking] are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled.” The lower court had “viewed unblocking and disabling as inadequate because some patrons may be too embarrassed to request them.” Justice Rehnquist did not dispute this was possible. “But,” he added, “the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire any information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred that CIPA is constitutional. He concluded that “If, on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay, there is little to this case.” Justice Kennedy acknowledged that some librarians may not be able do so, or may refuse to do so. But if this happens, Justice Kennedy said, “that would be the subject for an as- applied challenge [to the actions of that particular librarian], not the facial challenge [to the constitutionality of CIPA as a whole] made in this case.”

Justice Stephen Breyer concurred as well. He found CIPA to be constitutional, because “No clearly superior or better fitting alternative to Internet software filters has been presented.” Moreover, “Given the comparatively small burden the Act imposes upon the library patron seeking legitimate Internet materials, I cannot say that any speech-related harm that the Act may cause is disproportionate when considered in relation to the Act’s legitimate objectives.”

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.