The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to review a lower court's ruling that permits the removal of 17 books from public libraries in Llano County, Texas. This decision allows local officials to continue actions that include the removal of literature addressing themes of race and LGBT identity. A previous court ruling dismissed claims from residents who argued that these removals violated the First Amendment's protections against government restrictions on free speech.

The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, does not set a nationwide legal precedent but reflects a growing trend of book bans in public schools and libraries across the United States, often driven by conservative groups and new state legislation that limits access to certain types of literature. The controversy began in 2021 when residents requested the removal of specific books, including Maurice Sendak's "In the Night Kitchen," which faced scrutiny for its illustrations.

In 2023, a federal judge ordered the restoration of the removed books, but this decision was overturned by the 5th Circuit in a narrow 10-7 ruling. The court concluded that public library patrons do not possess a constitutional right to receive information under the First Amendment. Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, writing for the majority, argued that the removal of books does not constitute a ban, suggesting that patrons could still access the books through other means.

This ruling contrasts with a 1982 Supreme Court decision that prohibited school boards from removing books based solely on disapproval of their content. The legal landscape surrounding the First Amendment's right to receive information remains complex, particularly in light of recent rulings favoring parental rights in educational settings.

In a separate matter, the Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which addresses the extent of presidential authority over independent agencies. Oral arguments presented on March 4, 2025, indicated that the court's Republican-appointed justices may be inclined to redefine the balance of power within the federal government, potentially undermining the expertise and nonpartisanship that independent agencies provide.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concerns that proposed changes could dismantle the structure of government, emphasizing Congress's role in establishing independent agencies to ensure a separation of powers. The case centers on FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was removed by President Trump for not aligning with his agenda, despite legal protections against such dismissals.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson articulated that the President should not have the authority to terminate government experts, warning that such actions could undermine the interests of American citizens. She emphasized that independent agencies exist to manage certain matters with non-partisan expertise, which is crucial for public welfare.

The Supreme Court's inclination to allow the president to remove agency heads without cause raises concerns about political favoritism and the erosion of expertise in governance. As the court prepares to make a decision, the implications for the independence of regulatory bodies and the potential for increased political interference in government functions remain significant concerns for the future of governance in the United States.