On Eve of Hearing, Appeal in Key Colorado Book Ban Case is Suddenly Abandoned

An appeal in a closely-watched book banning case in Colorado, Crookshanks, et al. v. Elizabeth School District, was abruptly abandoned this week just three days before oral arguments. The dismissal leaves in place a ruling that ordered 19 books returned to a high school library—a win for for freedom to read advocates, for now—but under strange circumstances.

The case involves the Elizabeth School District in Colorado, where administrators in 2024 enacted a new policy that led to the banning of books including classics like Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye and Beloved, as well as frequently banned books like Angie Thomas’s The Hate U Give; Looking for Alaska by John Green; and Smoke by Ellen Hopkins. The book bans prompted a lawsuit led by the ACLU of Colorado on behalf of two students, the NAACP, and the Authors Guild, which argued that the bans were based on illegal viewpoint discretion and should be reversed.

On March 19, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney agreed, and ordered the district to return the books to library shelves. "It is unconstitutional—under both the federal and Colorado Constitutions—to remove books from a school library merely because the District 'disagree[s] with the views expressed in the books,'" Sweeney held, in her order.

The district then appealed, with the court in November 2025 setting a hearing date of January 23, 2026. But on January 20, attorneys filed a motion to abandon their appeal. The brief motion offers no clues as to why, noting only that the motion was not opposed by the plaintiffs, and that the district had agreed to cover the plaintiffs' court costs for the abandoned appeal.

In a terse order, the court granted the motion on January 21, but expressed its displeasure with the move.

"This appeal has been set for oral argument for more than two months, since November 3, 2025. Since that time, the court has expended valuable time and resources studying the briefing and record in this matter, and otherwise preparing for oral argument," the court's short, per curiam order reads. "In that regard, Appellant’s filing of the Motion only days before the scheduled argument is not well-taken. Nevertheless, the Motion is granted and this matter is dismissed."

The case now returns to the district court where it will proceed to trial.  

In a statement, ACLU of Colorado legal director Tim Macdonald questioned why the district wasted 10 months and significant resources on an appeal only to abandon it just days before the argument.

“Instead of accepting the district court’s decision and prioritizing their time, energy, and resources into serving the school community, the school district spent massive amounts of money, time, and resources pursuing a fruitless appeal that furthered their political agenda at the cost of its community members," Macdonald said. "Far from seeking to conserve its allegedly limited resources, ESD spent those resources on a wasteful appeal and then sought retreat when it was time to face the Court."

But, Really, Why?

While the abandoned appeal stands as a win for freedom to read advocates, for now, the question remains: what's really behind the sudden surrender? Was it budgetary? Did the District get cold feet? Also, Colorado now has a freedom to read law, was that a factor?

In a statement on Friday, the District told the Elbert County News that it made the decision to spend its "limited" resources on preparing for its trial at the district court. “When the Elizabeth School District appealed the district court’s preliminary-injunction order in the spring of last year, we asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to stay the order and to expedite a ruling. The Tenth Circuit did neither," the statement reads. “Based on the timing and the progress of proceedings in the district court, the school district decided its limited resources were best directed at preparing for trial and any appeal after a final decision from the trial court."

That explanation, however, doesn't make a lot of sense, coming just three days before oral arguments. Presumably, as the court and the plaintiffs note, the decision to focus on the trial at the district court is a decision that could and should have been made months ago.

The decision to abandon the appeal also comes just weeks after the Supreme Court's December 2025 decision not to review a controversial Fifth Circuit decision in Little v. Llano County, which held there was no right to receive information in public libraries. Notably, conservative lawyer Jonathan F. Mitchell, who is listed as counsel for the Elizabeth School District, also served as counsel in the Llano County case. And in Mitchell's brief urging the Supreme Court not to review the Llano case, he argued that the high court should wait for more cases to be decided on appeal, citing the Colorado case before the Tenth Circuit.

The decision to abandon the appeal before the Tenth Circuit also comes just days after the Eighth Circuit, on January 12, heard, for a second time, the state's appeal of a judge's order blocking a sweeping book banning provision in Iowa state law S.F. 496.

Regardless of the reason, the decision to abandon the appeal before the Tenth Circuit comes as a glut of book banning cases make their way through the appeals courts.

Also in the pipeline, two appeals in the Eleventh Circuit: Parnell v. School Board of Escambia County (in which a district court, leaning heavily on the Fifth Circuit's Llano decision, agreed there is no First Amendment right to receive information in a school library), and an appeal of judge Carlos E. Mendoza's decision to wipe out two controversial book banning provisions in HB 1069.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit is currently reviewing a challenge of Idaho's recently enacted law HB 710, which requires schools and libraries to remove books vaguely deemed to be “harmful” to minors.