Assembly Judiciary hears bill to protect student access to school and public library materials

At a hybrid hearing in Carson City and Las Vegas, the Assembly Judiciary Committee opened discussion on Assembly Bill 416, legislation that would restrict removal or reclassification of library materials in public schools, public libraries and institutions of higher education and create a court pathway to remove materials only if a judge finds them legally obscene.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Britney Miller, said the measure is intended to protect students’ access to information and to shield librarians and educators from political pressure and harassment. “This bill strikes a careful balance between protecting students’ rights and the public’s rights to access information and ensure that decisions about library materials are made based on educational merit rather than political pressure or personal opinion,” Miller said.

Supporters — including civil‑rights groups, school librarians and parent advocates — told the committee that book challenges and harassment of library staff have increased in recent years. Andre Wade, state director for Silver State Equality, said many challenges target books with LGBTQ+ themes and stories by and about people of color. “Having access to books and library materials is a First Amendment right,” Wade said, adding that librarians have faced threats and that outside groups sometimes attempt to coordinate challenges in Nevada.

Debbie Steers, collection development manager for Washoe County Libraries, described her experience defending challenged titles. “In reading these works in their entirety I did not find stories of obscenity as the challengers alleged,” Steers said, adding that staff must read entire works to respond to complaints and that challengers frequently excerpt passages to make their case.

Miller told the committee the bill would: - prohibit school boards, charter governing bodies, library districts, municipalities and school employees or volunteers from limiting pupils’ access to library materials on bases such as race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability or political affiliation; - allow reasonable time, place and manner restrictions for safety and preservation but bar policies that intentionally hide, label, shelf or destroy materials for the protected reasons above; - permit individuals who live in a school district and have children attending a particular school to petition a court for removal of obscene materials only, where the court would apply the three‑part Miller test used by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine obscenity; - require school boards and charter governing boards to maintain a list of materials ordered removed from circulation by a court and to share that list with employees who select and purchase library materials; - prohibit retaliation such as dismissing, disciplining, transferring or doxxing school or library staff for selecting or circulating material that complies with law; and - make certain retaliatory dissemination of personal information a category E felony if it is intended to facilitate criminal offenses likely to cause death, bodily harm or stalking or would cause a reasonable fear of such harm.

Opponents at the hearing said the bill would remove local authority from school boards and parents, would impose a high judicial threshold for removing materials they consider inappropriate, and objected to the felony penalty. Janine Hanson, state chair of the Independent American Party, argued the bill “removes parents and the community” from decision making and would make librarians “a virtual dictator unless someone has the money to hire an attorney and go to court.”

Officials from both county public defender offices testified in limited opposition, asking the committee to reconsider the proposed category E felony penalty and instead prefer civil remedies and organizational liability. “We believe a hefty civil penalty would be a better deterrent,” Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office testified.

Several witnesses cited federal and state legal standards during testimony. Miller described the three‑part Miller v. California test for obscenity (whether material appeals to prurient interest by contemporary community standards, whether it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and whether it depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way). Other commenters referenced the First Amendment and existing Nevada statutes or case law during their remarks.

Supporters urged the committee to protect librarians and students’ access to a diversity of viewpoints. Linda Cavazos, a Clark County School District trustee who testified as an individual, said libraries “open up new worlds for our students” and that trustees and library staff should not be subjected to threats or intimidation.

The committee heard 30 minutes of support testimony, 30 minutes in opposition and 30 minutes in neutral testimony, with callers participating from Carson City, Las Vegas and by phone. No committee vote on AB416 was recorded in the hearing portion captured in the transcript.

The bill’s sponsor said she would answer committee questions and urged support. The hearing was followed by a committee work session on unrelated bills.

Votes or formal actions on AB416 were not recorded in the transcript excerpt.