October Term 2002 · Docket 02-361

Does federal funding require libraries to block online pornography?

Libraries argue blocking porn protects speech. The government argues blocking prevents harm.

Official caption
United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Smith argued the law is unconstitutional for two separate reasons.

    He stated the act requires libraries to engage in presumptively unconstitutional conduct.

    Mr. Olson argued blocking pornography is similar to excluding books from shelves.

    He claimed offering internet access without pornography expands freedom of speech.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The Children's Internet Protection Act ties federal funds to internet filters. Libraries say this forces unconstitutional conduct. The government says filters expand free speech.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 5, 2003.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Libraries want the law struck down as unconstitutional.

The government wants the law upheld to protect children.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Libraries argue the law forces them to engage in presumptively unconstitutional conduct.

The government argues blocking porn expands freedom of speech rather than abridging it.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines whether public libraries must filter internet content to receive federal money. It defines the balance between child safety and free speech in public spaces.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON