Argument #1
The Court should rule in favor of ALA. It is too much of a burden on libraries to install filtering software since this software is faulty in that it is overbroad in blocking material which is not obscene and/or harmful to minors. Also CIPA requires libraries to violate the First Amendment by installing filtering software which blocks out material which is protected speech. This statute does not pass the "strict scrutiny" test.

Argument #2
The Supreme Court should rule in favor of the state of U.S.. Public funds can be conditioned on the receiving agency abiding by regulations intended to protect children from pornography and other harmful material. The filtering software can be disabled for non-minors who request it from the libraries. So no speech will be blocked from this audience.