The Denver-based federal appeals court declined on Monday to put a trial judge’s order on hold, instead clearing the path for Elizabeth School District to return 19 restricted books to its library shelves as directed earlier this month.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney found the elected school board had likely violated the First Amendment rights of students and authors by removing books with “sensitive” topics based on political ideology. The titles included “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini and “Beloved” by Toni Morrison, as well as “#Pride: Championing LGBTQ Rights” by Rebecca Felix, “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas and “Thirteen Reasons Why” by Jay Asher.

After the district asked Sweeney to pause, or stay, her order to return the books while it sought relief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Sweeney refused, instead ordering the books returned by April 5.

The district requested the 10th Circuit’s intervention, and a two-judge panel originally agreed to stay Sweeney’s order while it reviewed the arguments in depth. But after hearing from both sides, the panel opted against intervening and let Sweeney’s order stand while the appeal unfolds.

“Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, we find Appellant has not carried its burden to show the circumstances justify a stay,” wrote Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes, a George W. Bush appointee, and Judge Nancy L. Moritz, a Barack Obama appointee, in an April 28 order.

In December, the parents of two district students, the local NAACP chapter and The Authors Guild — representing authors of the removed books — sued the Elbert County district alleging a violation of the First Amendment and its counterpart provision of the Colorado Constitution.

Previously, the district identified several books for potential removal. Parents could fill out forms explaining why they wanted the books to either be “returned to the library and listed on the sensitive topic list” — meaning parents would get an alert if their child checked out the book — or “removed from the library collection.” There was no option to restore the books to libraries unconditionally.

Parents who submitted comments cited religious, political and LGBTQ-based objections to the content.

Emails between board of education members suggested they were thinking about the book removals in political terms. Board President Rhonda Olsen wrote that “We were very vocal about getting a superintendent and legal representation with conservative values.” Vice President Heather Booth wrote that “As an elected official committed to conservative values for our children, I feel a strong obligation to honor the promises made during my campaign.”

Although the board members submitted statements during the litigation disputing that they acted out of political motivations, Sweeney opted to use the emails as evidence of the board’s intent.

“The Court questions what could be more partisan or political than removing books to further the Board’s self-described conservative values,” wrote Sweeney, a Joe Biden appointee. “That parents want to remove books for partisan reasons does not permit government officials to do the same.”

The district asked Sweeney to stay her order while it appealed, characterizing her decision as unfair, “breathtakingly broad” and requiring whole new library policies. It also disclosed for the first time that it had already discarded the books entirely, prompting Sweeney to admonish the district for not being forthcoming with her.

Instead, on April 3, she reiterated the books should return to the shelves by the end of the week.

The district successfully got the 10th Circuit to temporarily halt that directive while the appellate judges examined Sweeney’s preliminary injunction. The district faulted Sweeney for crediting the board members’ emails instead of holding a hearing to weigh the evidence, and described her order as “forcing the District to spend resources to buy titles.”

“Any decision to weed a book for a facially valid reason could be subject to second-guessing by the court,” wrote the district’s lawyers. “The court is now the District’s de-facto library czar.”

The challengers pointed out that their lawyers, in fact, recently offered all of the restricted books to the district free of charge, but the board rejected those. The plaintiffs’ lawyers also rejected the argument that Sweeney was wrong to find political motivations behind the board’s decision.

“Viewpoint discrimination is not permitted no matter the viewpoint,” they wrote.

In addition to letting Sweeney’s order take effect, the 10th Circuit also declined to expedite the district’s appeal.

The case is Crookshanks et al. v. Elizabeth School District.