# United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 194

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434480

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES Et Al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 23, 2003
- **Citations:** 539 U.S. 194; 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 415; 29 Communications Reg. (P&F) 438; 71 U.S.L.W. 4465; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5397; 123 S. Ct. 2297; 156 L. Ed. 2d 221; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens, Souter
- **Cited by:** 174 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434480

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that requiring libraries to install filtering software on every computer with Internet access if the library receives any discount or funds from specified federal programs "does not 'penalize' libraries that choose not to install such software” because libraries that "…
- explaining that the funding conditions in Legal Services Corporation offended the First Amendment because the job of the lawyers there was “to advocate against the Government, and there was thus an assumption that counsel would be free of state control”
- holding that the “risk of embar- rassment” involved in asking a librarian to unblock a website wrongly blocked as obscene did not impose a cognizable bur- Page Proof Pending Publication den on a library patron's access to speech
- holding that the “risk of embar- rassment” involved in asking a librarian to unblock a web- site wrongly blocked as obscene did not impose a cognizable burden on a library patron’s access to speech
- recognizing shielding the public from unwanted exposure to pornography as a government interest sufficiently compelling to uphold a law requiring public libraries to install filtering software on their computers or else lose federal funding

## Opinion text

Justice Kennedy,
concurring in the judgment.
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. The Government represents this is indeed the fact. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; ante, at 209 (plurality opinion).
The District Court, in its “Preliminary Statement,” did say that “the unblocking may take days, and may be unavailable, especially in branch libraries, which are often less well staffed than main libraries.” 201 F. Supp. 2d 401, 411 (ED Pa. 2002). See also post, at 232-233 (Souter, J., dissenting). That statement, however, does not appear to be a specific finding. It was not the basis for the District Court’s decision in any event, as the court assumed that “the disabling provisions permit public libraries to allow a patron access to any speech that is constitutionally protected with respect to that patron.” 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 485-486 .
*215 If some libraries do not have the capacity to unblock specific Web sites or to disable the filter or if it is shown that an adult user’s election to view constitutionally protected Internet material is burdened in some other substantial way, that would be the subject for an as-applied challenge, not the facial challenge made in this case. See post, at 219-220 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment).
There are, of course, substantial Government interests at stake here. The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree. Given this interest, and the failure to show that the ability of adult library users to have access to the material is burdened in any significant degree, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face. For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434480. Public record. Not legal advice.