Alex Haley’s “Roots” to be removed from Knox County Schools libraries; WATE, May 14, 2026

Matt Hollingsworth, WATE; Alex Haley’s “Roots” to be removed from Knox County Schools libraries

"Alex Haley’s book “Roots” is included in an updated list of book titles to be removed from Knox County Schools libraries.

The schools previously removed other books from shelves due to the Age-Appropriate Materials Act including “Water for Elephants,” “A Court of Thorns and Roses” and “A Clockwork Orange.”

The state passed the Age Appropriate Materials Act in 2022 requiring schools to have a list of materials in their libraries and to have a policy for reviewing them for age appropriateness...

Haley grew up in Henning, Tennessee."

Banned Nonfiction Books Double in Public Schools, Erasing Authentic Stories & Histories; PEN America, May 7, 2026

PEN America; Banned Nonfiction Books Double in Public Schools, Erasing Authentic Stories & Histories

"In its latest report on book bans in public schools, PEN America today documents a doubling of censorship of nonfiction on subjects from history and health to general knowledge, including biographies and memoirs. The targeting of titles about real events or people underscores “an embrace of anti-intellectualism” within the book banning movement, according to the new report Facts & Fiction: Stories Stripped Away By Book Bans.

The report offers detailed analysis of the content of the 3,743 unique titles that were removed from school libraries and classrooms from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025. Over this same period, PEN America tracked 6,780 total instances of bans across 23 states.

Twenty-nine percent of the unique titles banned last school year were nonfiction. In addition, approximately 13% of all unique titles fell into the educational/informational genre – texts primarily written for students for reference or learning purposes and covering a range of subjects. Overall, the rise of banned nonfiction and educational titles exposed a new casualty in the campaign to suppress and restrict learning, which goes hand in hand with efforts to undermine public education and librarianship itself, the report states.

“This latest trend shows an embrace of anti-intellectualism, undermining public knowledge by  devaluing education and expertise,” said Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America’s Freedom to Read program. “It is another example of how censorship sweeps broadly, leading to removals of all kinds of books, in its efforts to sow fear and distrust in our public education system.”

As book bans in public schools have exploded since 2021, PEN America, the writers and free expression organization, has documented the crisis nationwide, counting more than 23,000 bans over the period.

The increase in nonfiction bans over 2024-2025 is especially troubling as reading scores and literacy rates decline while the report notes that nonfiction “is the gateway to literacy” and essential for young people to make sense of the world and form their own opinions. Books in this category often deal with personal, artistic, historical, and educational topics – just this month, Utah added the memoir of Jaycee Dugard, who was abducted from the street at age 11 and held for 18 years, to its list of books banned statewide."

Huntington Beach ordered to pay $1 million in lawyer fees in library censorship lawsuit; The Orange County Register, April 30, 2026

CLAIRE WANG , The Orange County Register; Huntington Beach ordered to pay $1 million in lawyer fees in library censorship lawsuit

"Huntington Beach must foot roughly $1 million in legal bills for restricting minors’ access to certain books at the city’s library, an Orange County judge ordered this week.

In a tentative ruling Monday, April 27, Orange County Judge Lindsey Martinez said the city needs to pay $960,000 to attorneys from four legal organizations, who billed more than 1,300 hours of work on the high-profile lawsuit against the city’s book restriction policy."

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County; Library Journal, December 16, 2025

Lisa Peet, Library Journal; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County

 "THE LONG GAME

While this is a disheartening development for the plaintiffs, Dan Novack, VP and Associate General Counsel at PRH, feels that a favorable precedent could still be set at the Supreme Court level. PRH has several cases in play, including Penguin Random House LLC v. Robbins, challenging Iowa’s SF496 in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson , fighting Florida’s HB 1069 in the Eleventh Circuit. Both are scheduled to be heard in early 2026.

Given that it only takes about one percent of the cases put forward to it every year, “when there is a traffic jam of cases, as there is in this emerging area of law, it’s really not uncommon for the Supreme Court to sit back and let it play out,” Novack told LJ. If the other cases are also decided against the freedom to read, the Supreme Court may not see the need to step in. But if rulings are split, it may choose to take on one of the cases.

If the Supreme Court had taken Little v. Llano, it could have resulted in a positive ruling coming sooner. But “I’m taking the longer view that it’s good to be presenting more options to the Court, and if they were to take a Penguin Random House case, I feel very strong about the merits of those cases,” said Novack.

Even Llano County’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, in his brief in opposition to the writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit ruling, stated that “The Court should wait and allow these [circuit] courts to weigh in on whether and how the Speech Clause applies to library-book removals before jumping in to resolve this issue.”

Novack acknowledges that this decision is a hard one for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. “Something went very wrong in the Fifth Circuit,” he said. But PRH and its council are committed to a multi-year fight that could potentially reach the Supreme Court and set precedent for the right to read throughout the United States.

“Although our lawsuit has come to a disappointing end,” Leila Green Little, lead plaintiff in the case, told LJ, “I am encouraged by the many people across the country who continue our fight in the courtrooms, their local libraries, and our state and federal legislative chambers.”"

Appeals Court Ruling Raises Bar for Challenging School Book Bans; EducationWeek, May 28, 2025

Mark Walsh , EducationWeek; Appeals Court Ruling Raises Bar for Challenging School Book Bans

[Kip Currier: Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan's majority opinion statements that "“Removing a library book does not deny anyone the chance to read it...“The book has not been ‘banned.’ …People who want the book can buy it or borrow it from somewhere else.” are disingenuous and elitist. The reality is that the book has been made inaccessible.

The chief rationale for having a school library is to enable students to be able to access information and materials like books. Taxpayer monies support the acquisition of materials for school libraries. So requiring a student and their family to have to resort to buying a book that the school library would arguably be likely to have is inequitable. A hypothetical student's family's tax dollars support the purchase of school library books. However, the state's stance requires that family (or any other family!) to elect to spend additional monies on a book that their child may want to read or forego access to that book. The other option, as Judge Duncan notes, is to try to borrow that book from somewhere else, which in and of itself raises obstacles. Either way, these are unethical barriers to information that only some students are required to navigate, while other students have unfettered access to state-favored resources. That's censorship and treats some people disparately from others.

The court's rationale is also inherently problematic and potentially unconstitutional as viewpoint discrimination because the court's position prioritizes the views of some books over others. It is acknowledged that no library is able to purchase and provide access to every book. Yet, this policy favors some students and families over others by the nature of the resources that tend to be removed under bans of this nature, i.e books that include references to issues and characters of color or that are LGBTQ+-related.]

[Excerpt]

"The court’s 100-page decision in Little v. Llano Countydevotes much discussion to school library book challenges. Notably, the court expressly overruled its own 1995 precedent that suggested students could challenge the removal of books in their schools.

“Removing a library book does not deny anyone the chance to read it,” says the majority opinion by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, an appointee of President Donald Trump. “The book has not been ‘banned.’ … People who want the book can buy it or borrow it from somewhere else.”

The majority also rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, which stemmed from a New York state school district’s 1976 removal of books from school libraries including Black Boy by Richard Wright, Soul On Ice by Eldridge Cleaver, and Go Ask Alice by an anonymous author."

Navy set to rename ship honoring Harvey Milk amid DEI purge; Politico, June 3, 2025

 GISELLE RUHIYYIH EWING and PAUL MCLEARY, Politico;  Navy set to rename ship honoring Harvey Milk amid DEI purge

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is set to rename a naval vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk, with several other ships honoring civil rights activists and women also potentially being rechristened.

The move targeting the ship named after the gay rights icon comes as LGBTQ+ communities kick off pride month celebrations across the country. The step furthers Hegseth’s agenda to stomp out DEI initiatives at the Pentagon, which has included removing books from service academies and scrubbing some mentions of women and people of color in the armed services from DOD websites."

Florida again argues books ban are 'government speech,' not prohibited by First Amendment; Tallahassee Democrat, November 19, 2024

 Douglas Soule, USA TODAY NETWORK via Tallahassee Democrat; Florida again argues books ban are 'government speech,' not prohibited by First Amendment

"In yet another case, Florida's government is arguing that book removals in public schools are "government speech," meaning they are unrestricted by the First Amendment.

It's a controversial legal argument, which free speech advocates have called "authoritarian," but one that the state has been particularly passionate about over the last year. Attorney General Ashley Moody's office even recently sent a representative to make it on behalf of a Texas community's public library...

The state's defense of the law and the book removal decisions by school districts goes beyond the government speech argument. It also argues that governments don't even have an obligation to "provide benefits" such as school libraries."

Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law; Iowa Public Radio, December 29, 2023

 Grant Gerlock, Iowa Public Radio ; Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law

"A federal judge has blocked the state of Iowa from enforcing major portions of an education law, SF 496, which has caused school districts to pull hundreds of books from library shelves.

The temporary injunction prevents enforcement of a ban on books with sexually explicit content, which the judge in the case said likely violates the First Amendment. It also blocks a section barring instruction relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary school, which he called “void for vagueness.”

The decision follows a hearing last week that combined arguments from two separate challenges against the law signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in May. A lawsuit brought by LGBTQ students calls the law discriminatory while another from a group of educators and the publisher Penguin Random House claims it violates their freedom of speech.

Enforcement provisions in the law that apply to book removals were set to take effect January 1...

Judge Stephen Locher said in his ruling released late Friday afternoon that the court was unable to find another school library book restriction “even remotely similar to Senate File 496.” Where lawmakers should use a scalpel, he said, SF 496 is a “bulldozer” that has pulled books out of schools that are widely regarded as important works.

“The underlying message is that there is no redeeming value to any such book even if it is a work of history, self-help guide, award-winning novel, or other piece of serious literature,” Locher wrote. “In effect, the Legislature has imposed a puritanical ‘pall of orthodoxy’ over school libraries.”"

What the Banning of Maus and V for Vendetta Tell Us About Comic Book Censorship; CBR, February 1, 2022

Tommy Ebbs, CBR; What the Banning of Maus and V for Vendetta Tell Us About Comic Book Censorship

"What is of particular interest is the fact that both Maus and V for Vendetta are innately political texts. While Maus is a genre-bending memoir about the Holocaust and V for Vendetta is a fictional tale about an anarchist revolt, both books deal with themes relating to fascism and authoritarianism. In 2014, Russia banned Maus due to it featuring the swastika on its front cover during a crackdown on anything involving Nazi paraphernalia, even though the comic is one of the most anti-fascist works in all of fiction. In 2020, China also banned the film adaptation of V for Vendetta, and although no official reason was given, the Guy Fawkes mask from the comic and film was worn by many Hong Kong protesters during the 2019-2020 unrest.

While the rationale of removing the books from Tennessee schools is due to a belief that it will make students “uncomfortable”, many of the books are written by members of the LGBTQ+ community and address issues related to race and gender. When the CCA was first introduced, comics were still in their infancy and regarded as children's entertainment that did not address social and political issues. Since then, however, both Maus and V for Vendetta have been considered challenging literary works that deal with political topics in a mature fashion. This is an incredibly concerning development, considering how both books are anti-fascist and deliberately warn against the limitation of free speech and the curbing of artistic expression, as well as what can happen when these issues go unchallenged."