Nevertheless, Doe decided to challenge the secret letter in court, and on Sept. 9 U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall said the gag order violates the First Amendment. "John Doe" has a First Amendment right to engage in the "current and lively debate in this country over the renewal of the PATRIOT Act," she ruled. An appeal by the government is expected.

According to a column in the Hartford Courant by Christine Bradley, director of the Connecticut Library Consortium, librarians are “concerned about the disastrous effect of the PATRIOT Act on their professional responsibility to protect the privacy of patrons.” Debate over its re-authorization is underway in Congress.

The act authorizes federal officials to examine patron records and belongings, even if they aren’t investigating a particular person; it allows the FBI to demand records without prior judicial review; and makes no distinction between library records and other business records.

Ann Beeson, ACLU associate legal director and lead attorney in the case, said “the court has recognized that gagging our client from participating in the PATRIOT Act debate violates the First Amendment and is profoundly undemocratic. Today's ruling makes clear that the government cannot silence innocent Americans simply by invoking national security."

In 2003, former Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly characterized librarians' concerns that the PATRIOT Act could be used to target library records as "baseless hysteria."

Bradley predicts that “these brave Connecticut Yankees will show lawmakers that the way to be a patriot is to protect civil liberties. Librarians, booksellers and others are concerned about the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.”