Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, I am submitting the following additional authorities that have come to my attention since the briefing was complete. Please circulate copies of this letter to the judges on the panel for this case, which will be submitted on the briefs and record on August 1, 2003.

The following authorities are recent Supreme Court rulings:

• United States v. American Library Association, et al., 539 U.S. ___ (June 23, 2003), reversed American Library Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 201 F.Supp.2d 401 (E.D. Penn. 2002), which was relied on in appellant’s opening brief at page 14 and appellent’s reply brief at pages 4-5. However, it did so without changing (or even mentioning) the holdings of Kreimer and its progeny.

• Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (June 26, 2003), supports the argument on page 19 of appellant’s reply brief that, even if the right of personal appearance is not a fundamental right but instead is a protected liberty interest, then the right must be balanced against some legitimate governmental interest: "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." (slip op., opinion by Kennedy, J., p. 18.)

The following authorities, while not new, were discovered after the briefs were filed:

• Garner v. Memphis Police Department, 8 F.3d 358 (6th Cir.1993), is a Sixth Circuit ruling that supports the point on page 22 of appellant’s opening brief that this court may order summary judgment in appellant’s favor.

• Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523 (6th Cir.1998), is a Sixth Circuit ruling that supports the point on page 26 of appellant’s reply brief that "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." (It also affirms generally the First Amendment right to receive information.)

• Wayfield v. Town of Tisbury, 925 F. Supp. 880 (1996), supports the argument on page 41 of appellant’s opening brief that library patrons have a due process liberty/property interest in continued access to the library, and that this interest cannot be infringed without due process.

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served, by regular U.S. mail, upon Philomena M. Dane and Johnathan E. Sullivan, Attorneys for Defendants, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., 1300 Huntington Center, 41 South High Street, Columbus, OH, 43215, this 9th day of July, 2003.