This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.
Huntington Beach ordered to pay $1M in legal fees for censoring library books
Huntington Beach suffered another courtroom loss in its culture war battles this week when a judge ordered the city to pay $1 million in legal fees for restricting minors’ access to library books.
The City Council passed a resolution in 2023 prohibiting children from accessing books deemed to contain sexual content in the city's public libraries. Critics said the policy amounted to illegal censorship, and that it was actually an excuse to restrict books with LGBTQ characters and themes.
In September 2025, Orange County Judge Lindsey Martinez found the policy violated California’s newly passed Freedom to Read Act.
The city had also established a citizen review board with the power to censor children’s books at the library. Voters repealed that review board in a special city election in June 2025.
Since the start of last year, the city has lost court battles over state housing mandates, voter ID requirements and California’s immigrant sanctuary law, racking up millions in legal fees.
“The City Council continues to burn through taxpayer dollars to pursue their own personal grievances,” said Erin Spivey, the named plaintiff in the library lawsuit who is now running for City Council.
The city has received some pro bono legal counsel from the conservative law firm America First Legal, co-founded by Trump advisor Stephen Miller, including a recent appeal over the sanctuary law.
The city has appealed Martinez’s decision and, in the meantime, has not taken many of the steps required in the judge’s order, according to library advocates. Those include returning a handful of censored books on puberty and the human body to the children’s section, and restoring the central library’s once-popular teen section.
In a statement to LAist, Mike Vigliotta, the city attorney, said officials were “evaluating next steps.” He also noted that the judge’s award of $1 million was reduced from the $1.5 million initially requested by plaintiffs.