InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

United States, et al. v. American Library Association, Inc., et al.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding, as required in the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000.

539 U.S. 194 · No. 02-361 · 2002 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 23, 2003 · argued Mar 5, 2003

First Amendment · Obscenity, federal

Majority opinion: William Rehnquist

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed. United States, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court, and its own ruling ends the case.

United States, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding, as required in the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school and library usage of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights and that the Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2002 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgSouterBreyerO'ConnorKennedyRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
United States, et al.United States
Respondent
American Library Association, Inc., et al.Professional organization, business, or person
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 23, 2003DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed. United States, et al. won.
  2. Mar 5, 2003ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

23 other argued cases since 1946 on obscenity, federal, newest first.

  1. Lockhart v. United States577 U.S. 347Mar 1, 2016 · 577 U.S. 347First Amendment6–27–2 band

  2. United States v. Michael Williams553 U.S. 285May 19, 2008 · 553 U.S. 285First Amendment7–27–2 band

  3. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.542 U.S. 656Jun 29, 2004 · 542 U.S. 656First Amendment5–45–4 band

  4. John Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.535 U.S. 564May 13, 2002 · 535 U.S. 564First Amendment8–18–1 band

  5. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. the Free Speech Coalition et al.535 U.S. 234Apr 16, 2002 · 535 U.S. 234First Amendment6–36–3 band

  6. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the press521 U.S. 844Jun 26, 1997 · 521 U.S. 844First Amendment9–0Unanimous band

  7. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., et al.513 U.S. 64Nov 29, 1994 · 513 U.S. 64First Amendment7–27–2 band

  8. Ferris J. Alexander, Sr. v. United States509 U.S. 544Jun 28, 1993 · 509 U.S. 544First Amendment5–45–4 band
  9. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.492 U.S. 115Jun 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 115First Amendment6–36–3 band

  10. Pinkus, dba Rosslyn News Co. et al. v. United States436 U.S. 293May 23, 1978 · 436 U.S. 293First Amendment8–18–1 band
  11. Smith v. United States431 U.S. 291May 23, 1977 · 431 U.S. 291First Amendment5–45–4 band
  12. Marks et al. v. United States430 U.S. 188Mar 1, 1977 · 430 U.S. 188First Amendment5–45–4 band

  13. Hamling et al. v. United States418 U.S. 87Jun 24, 1974 · 418 U.S. 87First Amendment5–45–4 band
  14. United States v. Orito413 U.S. 139Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 139First Amendment5–45–4 band
  15. United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film et al. (Paladini, Claimant)413 U.S. 123Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 123First Amendment5–45–4 band

  16. United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs (Luros, Claimant)402 U.S. 363May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 363First Amendment6–36–3 band

  17. United States v. Reidel402 U.S. 351May 3, 1971 · 402 U.S. 351First Amendment7–27–2 band

  18. Blount, Postmaster General, et al. v. Rizzi, dba the Mail Box400 U.S. 410Jan 14, 1971 · 400 U.S. 410First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  19. Rowan, dba American Book Service, et al. v. United States Post Office Department et al.397 U.S. 728May 4, 1970 · 397 U.S. 728First Amendment8–0Unanimous band

  20. Ginzburg et al. v. United States383 U.S. 463Mar 21, 1966 · 383 U.S. 463First Amendment5–45–4 band
  21. Manual Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Day, Postmaster GeneralLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press370 U.S. 478Jun 25, 1962 · 370 U.S. 478First Amendment6–18–1 band
  22. Roth v. United StatesLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press354 U.S. 476Jun 24, 1957 · 354 U.S. 476First Amendment6–36–3 band

  23. United States v. Alpers338 U.S. 680Feb 6, 1950 · 338 U.S. 680First Amendment5–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.