4. Reasoning of the Court

To start from the beginning, the Island Trees School Board removed several books from the school library. This sort of action is justified by their purpose of organizing an open-minded and efficient educational system in their area. Supporting and acting through Pico, the students brought the school to federal district court. The federal district court had decided in favor of the Board. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision. The Board petitioned the Supreme Court. Supreme Court noticed the School Board had singled out a list of books which were not a part of the required curriculum. In the words of the court, "We can reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and grant petitioners' request for reinstatement of the summary judgment in their favor, only if we determine that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,' and that petitioners are 'entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)
Since it is not required reading, but optional reading done in the library, and because the board appears to be motivated by their disagreement with the ideas expressed, their actions may be perceived as the suppression of ideas. Justice Brennan believes that suppressing ideas in this manner goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is written..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd) The Board of Education was trying to remove materials they considered racist and controversial. In the Supreme Court, the precedence from Tinker v. Des Moines was brought to attention by Justice Brennan that students don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech upon entering the schoolhouse gate."(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZO.html) He also added, "In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books..."(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)
Marshall, Steven, Blackmun and White concurred with Brennan's decision while Burger, Powell, Rehnquist and O' Connor dissented. (http://oyez.com/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_2043)
Blackmun, although agreeing with all parts except II A-1, wanted to specify his opinion of the First Amendment in this case stating, "I do not suggest that the State has any affirmative obligation to provide students with information or ideas, something that may well be associated with a 'right to receive.'...I do not believe, as the plurality suggests, that the right at issue here is somehow associated with the peculiar nature of the school library..." (http://www.tourolaw.edu/PATCH/Pico/)