Yesterday, Tuesday, October 21, 2025, Judge Albright of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas once again sided with booksellers in Book People v. Morath (formerly Book People v. Wong).
In Book People v. Morath, the American Booksellers Association joined Texas bookstores BookPeople and Blue Willow Bookshop, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, and Comic Book Legal Defense Fund to challenge the constitutionality of Texas’ READER Act. Signed in 2023, the READER Act would have forced vendors of library materials to school districts to assign content ratings to books for future sales and recall any previous sales still in “active use” (undefined) that fell afoul of the law’s provisions. The State would publicly list vendors’ ratings, could force vendors to change them if the State disagreed, and would forbid noncompliant vendors from selling materials to school districts.
Tuesday’s decision permanently enjoins the sections of the READER Act that directly impact booksellers, preventing library material vendors from being compelled to assign content ratings to books. As when he awarded a preliminary injunction on September 18, 2023, Judge Albright determined that the READER Act unconstitutionally compels speech, forcing library material vendors to assign ratings they may not want to assign without a mechanism for appeal. He found that irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs would occur without a permanent injunction.
Allison K Hill, the CEO of the American Booksellers Association, said in response to the ruling, “ABA applauds Judge Albright’s decision in Book People v. Morath and his reaffirmation of the First Amendment rights of booksellers. Judge Albright’s ruling against the READER Act is good news for Texas readers, schools, and bookstores.”
Judge Albright’s order largely focused on infringement on the First Amendment rights of booksellers, finding that “the constitutional and reputational harms alone warrant injunctive relief here,” even if there was no financial harm. Yet the Judge did not take up Plaintiffs’ request to consider the constitutional implications of the READER Act’s definitions, which have since been echoed in library legislation in Texas (HB 183). Finding that the compelled speech argument prevails on its own, the District Court declined to address arguments that the Act “facially violates the First Amendment,” is “substantially overbroad,” and “unconstitutionally delegates government authority to regulate speech to private entities.”
The ruling grants permanent injunctive relief, which will stand unless the State appeals the decision to the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court.