Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark ruling in Little v. Llano County, one that might finally stop the barrage of frivolous lawsuits masquerading as First Amendment crusades. The court reversed an earlier, deeply flawed panel decision in a sweeping en banc decision. Instead, it affirmed what should have been obvious all along: public libraries have the right to curate their collections (including removing books), regardless of what Amanda Jones, Lynette Mejia, or Nureka Ross think.
The court rightly labeled the plaintiffs’ arguments ‘over-caffeinated’. It rejected the idea that anyone has a constitutional right to disrupt public meetings to demand that taxpayer-funded shelf space be provided for any book they choose.
The timing couldn’t be more fitting.
Just days earlier, Lafayette Parish Council Chairman A.B. Rubin called for the removal of Library Board Member Robert Judge, not because he broke any law or violated any ethical guideline, but because he wouldn’t go along with a hasty settlement in a federal lawsuit brought by activists styling themselves as anti-censorship advocates. Incidentally, that deal would have dismissed every defendant except Robert Judge. The bait was waiving over $100,000 in legal fees if, and only if, the board had quietly rubber-stamped it in a secretive executive session.
The library board flatly refused to abandon Robert Judge to these ravenous protesters, who are desperate for a victory—any victory. The board insisted that the horrendous settlement offer be discussed publicly, in open session, rather than in secret. And for that, Rubin wants him gone.
The New Weapon of Radicals: Lawfare
Over the past few years, Louisiana has become ground zero for a dangerous new trend: weaponized litigation. Disguised as civil rights complaints or free speech battles like the one in Texas, an infinitesimal but vicious network of political radicals has been systematically using the court system to harass, intimidate, and silence those who dare challenge their agenda. The worst part is they’re manipulating the system using our own tax dollars. Their latest targets include citizens who speak up at public meetings, organizations that report on those meetings, and public servants who vote their conscience.
Take, for example, the disturbing tactics used in the McHugh v. St. Tammany Parish lawsuit. The plaintiffs in that case didn’t just sue a parish councilmember, David Cougle. Their attorney issued a sweeping subpoena to Citizens for a New Louisiana (a nonprofit news outlet) demanding confidential communications and source material entirely unrelated to the claims of their frivolous lawsuit. The subpoena was accompanied by threats of further lawsuits, burdensome depositions, and court sanctions for failure to comply immediately.
The Goal is to Intimidate Targets into Silence
We didn’t back down. Our legal team stood firm and invoked both Louisiana’s Reporter Shield Law and the First Amendment. We refused to surrender our sources or betray the trust of those who rely on us to tell the truth. The court has since tossed the underlying case, proving that these lawsuits are paper tigers that are less about justice and more about intimidation.
It’s a familiar pattern. Amanda Jones, a public school bureaucrat, filed a lawsuit against Citizens for a New Louisiana for allegedly defaming her by merely reporting what she said at a public meeting! Her demand? A single dollar and a public apology. In other words, a cheap win and a headline. We’re standing up against that, too. After going to the Supreme Court, we’re back at the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Your Tax Money is Paying for their Antics!
Now, these tactics are being supercharged with taxpayer money. Jones and her allies have enlisted the Tulane Law Clinic to represent them in their legal crusades. If you weren’t aware, Tulane has received over $150 MILLION in taxpayer funds in just the last few years. Lead attorney Katie Schwartzmann, the Director of Tulane’s “First Amendment Clinic,” has taken the lead, dragging a few law students along under the guise of “education” and “public service.” The truth is your tax dollars are being weaponized to do what political activists cannot afford: sue, depose, and intimidate dissenters into submission.
Because these crusades are cloaked in the guise of student education, judges appear more reluctant to shut them down, despite how meritless they often are. Let’s give these students real-world experience with depositions and time in the courtroom. The costs don’t matter either, because the government is effectively suing itself to create an educational setting.
Tulane has a History of pursuing this kind of Garbage
The Tulane Law Clinic has already represented Seth Mattei, a known associate of the Jones network, in a matter in which even the Slidell Independent reported threats and harassment against Councilman Cougle. That bears repeating: The Tulane Law Clinic supported a vicious activist who threatened and harassed a public official. Does that sound familiar? It’s precisely what’s been going on in Lafayette. Even all the players are the same!
That’s right, the same network is targeting Lafayette, launching a barrage of legal maneuvers intended to force settlements and silence debate over the curation of sexually explicit books in children’s sections of public libraries. The playbook is simple: accuse your opponents of censorship, tie them up in litigation, and settle for a headline and a payout. “Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to settle and give us what we want?”
Lawfare Only Works If We Let It
Repeatedly, courts have seen through these charades. As we’ve seen in the recent Texas court decision, judges will eventually toss these claims, deny their motions, and uphold the rights of those they hoped to intimidate. The real debate belongs in the public square, not a courtroom. The only reliable outcome of these lawsuits is mounting legal fees, where taxpayers ultimately bear costs for both sides.
Here at Citizens for a New Louisiana, we will not be bullied into trading truth for comfort. As Reagan so aptly put it, we will achieve peace through strength. Giving in to these vicious intimidation tactics teaches the perpetrators (and onlookers) that it works. It’s an open invitation to get more of the same in the future.
This fight isn’t about just one lawsuit or parish—it’s about preserving open discourse, restoring public accountability, and preventing extremists from hijacking civil society through disruption and lawfare.
It ends here—it ends now. We are not backing down, nor should anyone who advocates for a Civil Society.
Great article. Continue to stand firm.