Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin is praising a federal appeals court decision that clears the way for enforcement of key provisions of the state’s 2023 library law.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling in litigation involving Act 372 of 2023.
The case challenged 2 sections of the law. Section 1 makes it illegal to knowingly furnish a minor with material legally considered harmful to minors. Section 5 requires county and municipal libraries to establish publicly available policies governing the selection, relocation and retention of materials, along with procedures for responding to challenges.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and permanently blocked enforcement of both provisions.
The Eighth Circuit reversed that judgment, vacated the permanent injunction and vacated an award of nearly $450,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
“I applaud the Eighth Circuit’s decision and its careful review of this case,” Griffin said.
Griffin said the ruling allows Arkansas to enforce a law intended to protect children from obscene materials while increasing public accountability for library collection decisions.
COURT REJECTS FACIAL CHALLENGES TO SECTION 1
The appeals court ruled that the librarian and bookseller plaintiffs had standing to challenge Section 1, which carries criminal penalties for knowingly furnishing material considered harmful to minors.
However, the court rejected their facial claims that the provision violated the First Amendment because it was substantially overbroad.
The court concluded the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the provision’s unconstitutional applications would be substantial when compared with its legitimate applications.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that Section 1 was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause.
The judges determined that the law uses commonly understood language and includes knowledge requirements addressing the character of the material and the conduct involved.
The ruling rejected the facial constitutional challenges presented in this case. It does not necessarily prevent future challenges involving the law’s application to specific circumstances.
PLAINTIFFS LACKED STANDING TO CHALLENGE SECTION 5
The Eighth Circuit did not decide the constitutional merits of the challenge to Section 5.
Instead, the court concluded the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate a concrete injury caused by the library-policy requirements.
Because the plaintiffs lacked standing, the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to decide their claims against that section.
Section 5 requires county and municipal libraries to adopt written, publicly available policies addressing collection decisions and procedures for reviewing challenged materials.
GRIFFIN CREDITS STATE LEGAL TEAM
Griffin said the Arkansas General Assembly approved Act 372 to address concerns about minors accessing obscene materials and to establish a process for reviewing challenged library content.
He credited Arkansas Solicitor General Autumn Hamit Patterson and members of the Solicitor General and Special Litigation Section for defending the law.
The consolidated appeal is titled Fayetteville Public Library v. Murray. It originated from litigation commonly identified as Fayetteville Public Library v. Crawford County.
The Eighth Circuit filed its decision July 30, 2026. Read the attorney general’s announcement and the Eighth Circuit opinion.
KEY POINTS:
Law:
Act 372 of 2023
Court:
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decision Date:
July 30, 2026
Case:
Fayetteville Public Library v. Murray
Lower Court:
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Result:
Lower court judgment reversed
Permanent Injunction:
Vacated
Attorney Fees and Costs:
Nearly $450,000 award vacated
Section 1:
Facial overbreadth and vagueness challenges rejected
Section 5:
Challenge dismissed for lack of standing; constitutional merits were not decided
Leave a Reply