First Amendment litigation involving book censorship in schools has usually turned on the rights of a school board to control classroom curricula by prohibiting the use of certain texts, and an inquiry into whether a certain challenged text is vulgar. Some federal courts have distinguished between objective vulgarity—which a school board may prohibit—and the subject matter of a book (witchcraft, lesbian romance) with which the school board members may personally disagree or have a distaste for—and which a school board may not prohibit.

But one federal court recently stated that book banning takes place when a government or its officials forbid or prohibit others from having a book. The term does not apply where a school district—through its authorized school board—decides not to continue possessing the book on its own library shelves. The school board is the entity that has the ultimate authority to decide what books will be purchased and kept on the shelves of the schools in the district—and the school board can decide not to purchase and shelve a book in the first place.

In Louisiana, as in other states, First Amendment litigation related to book censorship in schools often revolves around the balance between a school board's authority to determine educational content and the protection of free speech. School boards have the right to control classroom curricula and remove texts they find objectively vulgar. However, they cannot prohibit books based on subjective disagreement with the book's subject matter, such as themes of witchcraft or LGBTQ+ relationships. A federal court has clarified that 'book banning' refers to the act of forbidding access to a book. This is distinct from a school board's decision not to purchase or retain a book in a school's library. In Louisiana, the school board has the discretion to decide which books to acquire and maintain in school libraries, and it is within their authority to choose not to have certain books on their shelves without it constituting a ban, provided the decision is not based on an unconstitutional motive.