The suit alleged that the defendants\u2019 actions violated Wallace\u2019s First Amendment rights, calling her statements \u201ccore political speech\u201d on a matter of public concern\u2014whether sexually explicit and profane books should be paid for by school districts and accessible to minors in school libraries.<\/p>\n
Wallace\u2019s attorneys say she did not exceed her time limit, go off topic, or cause any disruption, and that she was removed \u201csolely because of the content and viewpoint of her remarks,\u201d specifically her criticism of HISD\u2019s decision to purchase and circulate \u201csexually explicit\u201d books.<\/p>\n
An Inconsistent Public Posture<\/p>\n
Defendants have since filed a motion to dismiss the case, asserting<\/a> that the lawsuit \u201cidentifies no authority requiring the presiding officer to permit the live oral recitation of sexually graphic passages in such a forum under those circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n The district cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions\u2014Ginsberg v. New York<\/a> and Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton<\/a>\u2014which recognized \u201cthe State\u2019s substantial interest in protecting minors from exposure to sexually explicit material.\u201d Their application of these rulings to Wallace\u2019s removal remains controversial, and her attorneys assert that their characterization of the cases is incorrect.<\/p>\n As justification for her removal, the district noted how Wallace herself considered the content as too graphic for minors\u2014all while failing to acknowledge that they are distributing the same content to minors.<\/p>\n Wallace told Texas Scorecard, \u201cHISD claiming they had authority to remove me because I was reciting sexually explicit passages is such hypocrisy. They evidently thought the book was wildly inappropriate. I agree that this book, and thousands of others, are wildly inappropriate for minors. But HISD should explain why they squandered taxpayer dollars on this sexually explicit content and are now retaining it so minors continue to have access to it. In essence, I was reading HISD\u2019s own speech. If they truly think this speech is inappropriate, all library books containing this sexually explicit content must be removed from HISD libraries. Their request to have the lawsuit dismissed by stating they want to protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit material is HILARIOUS! I guess they only want to protect minors from sexually explicit content during HISD school board meetings but not in HISD libraries!\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The district also failed to acknowledge in making this argument that Wallace had expressly asked any adults with children present to step out for the brief duration of her remarks.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, HISD\u2019s characterization of Wallace\u2019s speech as \u201cdisruptive conduct\u201d is not enough to curb her First Amendment rights\u2014a point recently emphasized by the U.S. Supreme Court. <\/p>\n Wallace cited<\/a> the March 2026 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chiles v. Salazar<\/a>, which held that speech does not lose First Amendment protection merely because the government characterizes it as something other than speech.<\/p>\n \u201cChiles holds that speech does not become \u2018conduct\u2019 merely because the government says so or affixes a regulatory label to it,\u201d wrote Martin Etwop<\/a>, Wallace\u2019s attorney. \u201cThe Court explained that the First Amendment \u2018is no word game, and the exercise of constitutional rights cannot be circumscribed by mere labels.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Chiles also holds that speech does not lose constitutional protection simply because it occurs in a professional setting.\u00a0<\/p>\n The case is currently scheduled for trial in September 2027, following the standard 15\u2011month federal timeline from the filing of the initial complaint through trial.<\/p>\n HISD did not respond to Texas Scorecard\u2019s request for comment before publication.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/travis-writer-150x150.jpg\")
<\/p>\n