In 1972, Idaho enacted a law defining what materials are considered “harmful to minors” for purposes of its obscenity laws. In April 2024, the Legislature amended that definition and passed H.B. 710, the Children’s School and Library Protection Act. The law prohibits schools and public libraries from making “harmful” materials available to minors and allows enforcement through private lawsuits by minors or their parents, as well as actions by the State. It also permits recovery of damages and injunctive relief. The statutory definition of “harmful to minors” includes material that appeals to a minor’s prurient interest and depicts sexual content in a patently offensive way, but excludes material that, taken as a whole and in context, has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
In July 2024, the Northwest Association of Independent Schools (NWAIS) and two member schools filed a lawsuit challenging the law before it took effect. They argued that H.B. 710 violates free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement statewide. The trial court dismissed some plaintiffs for lack of standing and denied the injunction, finding the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The private school plaintiffs appealed.
The Ninth Circuit analyzed the law under the “overbreadth” doctrine, which examines whether a law restricts a substantial amount of protected speech. This analysis requires courts to determine what the law covers, whether it reaches protected expression, and whether it can be interpreted in a narrower way to avoid constitutional concerns.
The Court first considered how broadly the statute applies. Although the statutory language is expansive, the Court concluded that, when read as a whole, the law can be interpreted narrowly. Specifically, material qualifies as “harmful to minors” only if it meets all of the following criteria: it appeals to a minor’s prurient interest, depicts sexual content in a patently offensive manner, and lacks serious value for minors. Under this interpretation, the law targets only sexually explicit material that satisfies each of these elements.
The Court applied the same reasoning to the statute’s definition of “sexual conduct,” which includes “any act of . . . homosexuality.” Although this language is broad on its face, the Court held that it only applies within the narrow “harmful to minors” framework. As a result, the provision reaches only sexually explicit conduct, not non-sexual or innocuous references.
The Court’s decision ultimately focused on the statute’s “serious value” clause, which excludes material that has educational or other value for minors when considered “in context.” The parties disagreed about whether “context” allows schools and libraries to consider the age of different groups of minors. Accepting the State’s interpretation for purposes of its analysis, the Court concluded that the law permits different determinations of value depending on the age of the audience.
The Court found that this approach creates a subjective, age-based standard without clear guidance. Because the law does not provide objective criteria for how to evaluate “context,” and because it allows private lawsuits, the Court concluded that schools and libraries may feel pressure to restrict access to materials that are not actually obscene. This risk is especially significant for materials that may be appropriate for older students but not younger ones.
Based on these concerns, the Ninth Circuit held that the “context” provision is likely unconstitutionally overbroad because it could restrict a substantial amount of protected speech. The Court reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and sent the case back to the trial court to determine the appropriate scope of relief.
Nw. Ass’n of Indep. Sch. v. Labrador (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026) 2026 LX 24215.
Note: Although this case arose under Idaho law, it was decided by the Ninth Circuit, whose rulings are binding on federal courts in California. In addition, this case was brought by NWAIS and its member schools, and highlights the role that independent school organizations can play in challenging laws that impact school operations.