A coalition of 17 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court on Friday that asks a judge to strike down as unconstitutional two sections of Act 372, a new Arkansas law on school and public library materials, claiming violations of the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The introduction to the complaint calls Act 372 "a vague, sweeping law that restrains public libraries and booksellers in Arkansas from making available constitutionally protected books and other media to their patrons and customers."
The library plaintiffs are the Central Arkansas Library System -- the library system's board on May 25 voted in favor of authorizing the lawsuit -- the Fayetteville Public Library and the Eureka Springs Carnegie Public Library.
Industry groups include the Arkansas Library Association, the American Booksellers Association, the Association of American Publishers and the Freedom to Read Foundation. Also included as plaintiffs are two bookstores: Pearl's Books, located in Fayetteville, and WordsWorth Books, located in Little Rock.
Individual plaintiffs include Nate Coulter, the executive director of the Central Arkansas Library System, and Adam Webb, the director of the Garland County Library.
[DOCUMENT: Read the suit targeting the new law » arkansasonline.com/63act372/]
The complaint names 28 Arkansas prosecuting attorneys as defendants.
Additionally, the lawsuit names Crawford County as well as Crawford County Judge Chris Keith, citing the county library's recent decision to remove children's books with LGBTQ themes from the children's section. The complaint suggests more changes are coming to the Crawford County Library in response to Act 372.
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
Act 372 will go into effect Aug. 1, absent any injunction issued in the meantime.
The lead sponsor of the measure in the Arkansas Legislature was Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the legislation on March 30.
The complaint focuses on two of the law's six sections. The first contested section -- what the lawsuit describes as the "Availability Provision" -- establishes a new Class A misdemeanor offense of furnishing a harmful item to a minor.
"The term 'item' encompasses every form of expressive material that one could expect to find in a public library or bookstore, including books, magazines, and motion pictures," the complaint says.
Incorporating language from existing Arkansas law, Act 372's definition of "harmful to minors" is taken to mean material or performance with nudity or sexual conduct that the average adult, applying contemporary community standards, would find predominantly appeals to a prurient interest in sex to minors, would be found patently offensive to community standards with regard to what is suitable for minors and lacks serious cultural value, according to the complaint.
The "Availability Provision" is very similar to a 2003 statute that made it a Class B misdemeanor to display material harmful to minors, the complaint says, referencing the 2004 decision of then-U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Eisele of Arkansas' Eastern District, who found the provision to be facially unconstitutional under the First and 14th amendments.
"There is no available narrowing construction that may be employed to reduce the scope of the Availability Provision's sweeping regulation of expressive material," the complaint says. "The Arkansas Supreme Court has definitively interpreted the definition of 'minor' in the context of 'harmful to minor' laws to refer to all minors, not just younger minors."
The other contested section of Act 372 lays out a process for citizens to be able to challenge the appropriateness of public library materials, then appeal the library's decision to a local city council or quorum court in the event library officials decide not to relocate the material in question to an area inaccessible to minors.
The complaint argues that in addition to imposing an unconstitutional prior restraint on constitutionally protected, non-obscene material for both adults and older minors and being unconstitutionally vague, the "Challenge Procedure" represents a "de facto licensing scheme" because of the power it gives to local governing bodies to restrain expression without first seeking judicial review.
Local elected officials are given "undue discretion" to make decisions "without objective criteria or a record of their reasoning," the complaint says.
When asked for comment Friday, in a statement provided by a spokesman, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said, "I am representing the 28 prosecutors named in this lawsuit, and I look forward to defending the constitutionality of Act 372."
Other provisions of the law expose library personnel to potential prosecution for a Class D felony offense if they "knowingly" loan out material believed to be obscene, establish a similar challenge process for school libraries and allow libraries to disclose confidential library records to patrons as well as the parents or legal guardians of patrons under 18.