Nearly 4,000 books have been axed from schools, and Black stories are a frequent target. Now activists are fighting back in court.
By Aziah Siid
Originally appeared in Word in Black
From Texas to Iowa, governors and school boards have sought to restrict access to what kinds of books and lessons kids are exposed to in classrooms and libraries.
Through laws passed in Republican-dominated states to an executive order signed by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the bans focus on what conservatives call harmful content — texts and courses that center on issues of race along with sexual or gender identity.
Everything from classics like “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison and “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker, to new classics like Amanda Gorman’s poem “The Hill We Climb,” have been banned or challenged. But nonprofits and free-speech organizations like PEN America and the ACLU have joined forces with some of the largest publishing houses in the U.S. to push back.
With PEN America diligently tracking the amount of banned or challenged books — which is now up to nearly 4,000 — organizations are using the courts as their primary means to fight book bans and lesson restrictions. Here are four lawsuits directly challenging book bans in the country:
- Ruthie Walls, et. al. vs. Sarah Huckabee Sanders
The state’s decision to the lawsuit filed by teachers and students from Little Rock Central High School, site of the historic 1957 racial desegregation crisis, stems from the state’s decision last year that an Advanced Placement course on African American Studies would not count toward the credits Arkansas high school students need to graduate. s Arkansas high school students need to graduate.
The lawsuit argues the restrictions, which were among a number of education changes that Gov. Sanders, a Republican, signed into law last year, violatess free speech protections under the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- PEN America, Penguin Random House vs. Escambia County, Fla., School Board
The May 2023 lawsuit filed by Penguin Random House in partnership with PEN America, it states that schools in that schools in Escambia County in central Florida violated the First Amendment rights of its students as well as book authors, and publishers by by removing ing books from schools “based on ideological objections to their contents or disagreement with their messages or themes.”
The books that are most often most often removed or challenged, according to the lawsuit,, according to the lawsuit, address themes and messages related to race and LGBTQ+ issues, issues like gender identity and same-sex attraction. Florida is one of the states with the highest rate of book removals and restrictions in the country, as documented by PEN America’s’s Index of School Book Bans.
In January 2024, a federal judge a federal judge denied the school district’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment claims, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. But he ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. But he also dismissed PEN America’s claim that the removals also violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause of the Constitution. equal-protection clause.
- Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishers and Simon & Schuster, Penguin Random House vs. State of Iowa
Originally filed filed by the country’s largest publishing company, the federal suit directly challenges Iowa’s State law SF 496, whichwhich bans books that aren’t “age-appropriate” that aren’t “age-appropriate” and limits lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity. TThe plaintiffs in the case include include bestselling authors John Green and Jodi Picoult, who both have works on the banned–book list.
“We as publishers are uniting in our unwavering commitment to stand with educators, librarians, students, authors, and readers against the unconstitutional censorship measures being imposed by the state of Iowa,” the plaintiffs said in a statement. “The alarming rise of book bans across the country demands our collective action. Now, more than ever, we must stand firmly with our authors and readers to defend the fundamental right to read and the freedom of expression.”
“We as publishers are uniting in our unwavering commitment to stand with educators, librarians, students, authors, and readers against the unconstitutional censorship measures being imposed by the state of Iowa,” the plaintiffs said in a statement. “The alarming rise of book bans across the country demands our collective action. Now, more than ever, we must stand firmly with our authors and readers to defend the fundamental right to read and the freedom of expression.”
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican,, a Republican, stood behind the law, declaring that the measure protects young children from “instruction on general identity and sexual orientation.” She sstood behind the law, declaring that it protects young children from “instruction on general identity and sexual orientation.” She insists the law shouldn’t be seen as controversial.
- Lambda Legal, ACLU Iowa, and Jenner & Block LLP vs. State of Iowa State of Iowa
The lawsuit filed by a coalition led by Lambda Legal, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of gay, lesbian and transgender clients, also filed by a coalition led by Lambda Legal, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of gay, lesbian and transgender clients, also takes aim at SF 496, calling it an attempt to “silence LGBTQ+ students, erase any recognition of LGBTQ+ people from public schools, and bans books with sexual or LGBTQ+ content,” according to a news release.
Although the HarperCollins lawsuit focused on book bans, tAlthough the HarperCollins lawsuit focused on book bans, the Lambda Legal suit Lambda Legal suit challengess three specific parts of the bill that derive from a wide range of legislation passed in Iowa that other advocates have taken to court. Along with the book ban, the Along with the book ban, the suit attacks a so-called so-called “Don’t Say LGBTQ+” provision that forbids educational educational programs curriculum, instruction and other educational content other educational content ““relating to gender identity or sexual orientation..” And it challenges
The suit also challenges the “forced outing” provision of the law, which requires of the law, which requires teachers and other school staff to report to a parent or guardian that asks to be identified by a particular pronoun — regardless of whether doing so would make the student unsafe.
