The approach to book bans in educational settings varies significantly across legal systems, with courts consistently weighing the tension between school board authority and constitutional protections. The legal framework governing these disputes primarily centers on First Amendment principles, which establish boundaries for how educational institutions can restrict access to books and other materials. Since the landmark 1982 Supreme Court case Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, courts have established that while school boards maintain broad discretion in educational management, they cannot remove books simply because they disagree with the ideas expressed within them. This foundational principle continues to shape how legal systems evaluate challenges to book access in schools.
The Constitutional Framework for Book Access in Schools
The legal approach to book access in educational settings is fundamentally shaped by constitutional law principles that balance institutional authority with individual rights. The First Amendment’s protection of free speech and expression extends to the educational context, though with certain limitations that acknowledge the unique nature of the school environment. Courts have consistently recognized that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” as established in the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines decision.
When examining book ban cases, courts typically apply a balancing test that weighs the First Amendment interests of teachers and students against the school’s legitimate pedagogical concerns. This test requires careful examination of the specific circumstances surrounding each book ban, including the content of the book, the age of the students, and the manner in which the ban was implemented. Courts generally look for evidence of whether the decision to ban a book was based on legitimate educational concerns or was instead driven by a desire to suppress particular ideas or viewpoints.
The constitutional framework for addressing book bans was significantly shaped by the 1982 Supreme Court case Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico. In this landmark decision, the Court ruled that school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they disagree with the ideas contained in those books. The plurality opinion emphasized that while school boards have significant discretion in managing school affairs, this discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the First Amendment. The Pico decision established that students have a right to receive information and ideas, a right that is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press.
The Pico Standard and Its Ongoing Influence
The Pico decision remains the most significant Supreme Court ruling on book challenges in educational settings, despite being a plurality rather than a majority opinion. Justice Brennan, writing for the plurality, established a crucial distinction between school board authority over curriculum decisions and their power to remove books from school libraries. While acknowledging broad discretion in curricular matters, the Court held that this discretion does not extend to removing books from libraries based solely on disagreement with their content or message.
The Pico standard specifically prohibits school boards from removing books based on narrow partisan or political disagreement with their content. The Court emphasized that while books could be removed for being “pervasively vulgar” or lacking “educational suitability,” removal decisions motivated by a desire to suppress ideas or viewpoints violate the First Amendment. This distinction has proven crucial in subsequent litigation, as courts must often determine whether removal decisions were based on legitimate pedagogical concerns or impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
Despite being a plurality decision without full precedential force, Pico’s principles have been widely adopted by lower courts as the standard for evaluating book removal cases. The decision’s emphasis on protecting access to diverse ideas and viewpoints in school libraries has shaped judicial approaches to book ban controversies for over four decades. Courts consistently reference Pico when evaluating whether school officials have impermissibly restricted access to books based on ideological objections rather than legitimate educational concerns.
Recent Litigation Shaping Book Ban Jurisprudence
Recent legal challenges to book bans have further refined how courts apply First Amendment principles in educational settings. These cases demonstrate the ongoing tension between local control of education and constitutional protections for access to information. Several significant recent decisions have reinforced and expanded upon the Pico framework while addressing contemporary controversies over book access.
In January 2024, a Florida federal court issued an important ruling in PEN America v. Escambia County School District, rejecting a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the removal of over 160 library books. Judge T. Kent Wetherell II held that the First Amendment bars school boards from removing books from libraries simply because they disagree with their ideas or messages. The court rejected the school board’s argument that library collections constitute “government speech” exempt from First Amendment scrutiny, instead affirming that “the traditional purpose of a library is to provide information on a broad range of subjects and viewpoints.” This decision represents a significant affirmation of Pico’s principles in the context of contemporary book ban controversies.
Another significant recent case, Book People, Inc. et al. v. Martha Wong et al., challenged Texas’ READER Act on First Amendment grounds. In January 2024, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block of key provisions of the law, finding it “likely violated First Amendment protections.” The court’s decision prevented enforcement of provisions requiring booksellers to rate their books for sexual content and prohibited schools from purchasing books from vendors who had not complied with the rating system. This ruling demonstrates judicial skepticism toward broad legislative mandates that potentially restrict access to books based on content.
These recent cases illustrate how courts continue to apply and refine the constitutional principles established in Pico to address contemporary book ban controversies. While recognizing legitimate school authority to make educational decisions, courts remain vigilant against attempts to remove books based on ideological objections or viewpoint discrimination.
Distinguishing Between Library Books and Curriculum Materials
Legal systems typically draw important distinctions between restrictions on library access and control over curriculum materials. Courts generally afford school officials greater discretion over curricular decisions than library content, recognizing that curriculum development necessarily involves content selection and emphasis. This distinction has significant implications for how courts evaluate book ban cases.
In curriculum decisions, courts typically defer to the expertise and authority of educational professionals, acknowledging that schools must make choices about what materials to include in limited instructional time. As long as curricular decisions are based on legitimate pedagogical concerns rather than an intent to suppress particular viewpoints, courts are unlikely to intervene. This approach recognizes that schools cannot teach everything and must make reasonable content selections based on educational goals and community standards.
Library books, however, receive greater constitutional protection because they represent voluntary reading choices rather than required materials. The Pico decision specifically emphasized this distinction, noting that school libraries are places for “voluntary inquiry” where students can explore ideas beyond the prescribed curriculum. When schools remove books from libraries, they restrict this voluntary exploration in ways that potentially implicate First Amendment concerns. Courts therefore apply more stringent scrutiny to library book removals than to curriculum decisions.
This distinction explains why many book ban controversies focus specifically on library access rather than classroom use. School officials seeking to restrict access to controversial materials often recognize that removing books from libraries faces greater legal hurdles than excluding them from the curriculum. Some schools have attempted to navigate this distinction by creating restricted library sections requiring parental permission, a practice that has itself generated legal challenges.
The Role of Viewpoint Discrimination in Legal Analysis
Viewpoint discrimination represents a central concept in legal analysis of book ban cases. Courts have consistently held that government actions targeting speech based on the speaker’s ideology, opinion, or perspective face the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. In the context of book bans, courts examine whether removal decisions target specific viewpoints or ideas for disfavored treatment.
When evaluating potential viewpoint discrimination, courts look for evidence that books were removed because of disagreement with their message rather than legitimate educational concerns. This evidence might include statements by school board members expressing ideological objections, selective enforcement of content standards against books expressing particular viewpoints, or procedural irregularities suggesting predetermined outcomes. Courts are particularly skeptical of removal decisions that disproportionately affect books addressing certain topics or representing particular perspectives.
The prohibition against viewpoint discrimination does not mean schools cannot make content-based decisions. Schools may legitimately restrict access to materials based on factors like age-appropriateness, educational relevance, or pervasive vulgarity. However, these restrictions must be applied consistently rather than selectively targeting particular viewpoints. For example, a school might legitimately restrict access to sexually explicit materials across the political spectrum, but could not selectively restrict only those materials that present LGBTQ+ relationships while permitting similar content depicting heterosexual relationships.
Recent litigation has highlighted the continuing importance of viewpoint discrimination analysis in book ban cases. In the Escambia County case, the court found that plaintiffs had “plausibly alleged that Defendant’s removal/restrictions… do not pass constitutional muster… because the decisions were based on ‘ideological objections to [the books’] content or disagreement with their messages or themes, rather than for pedagogical reasons.'” This analysis demonstrates how courts continue to scrutinize the motivations behind book removal decisions to identify impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
State Legislation and Its Impact on Book Access
Recent years have seen a significant increase in state legislation affecting book access in schools, creating a complex legal landscape that varies substantially across jurisdictions. These legislative efforts have taken various forms, including laws establishing new review procedures for challenged materials, prohibiting certain content categories, and creating statewide mechanisms for book removal. The proliferation of such legislation has generated both increased book challenges and new legal controversies.
Florida’s HB 1069, which took effect in July 2023, exemplifies this trend by creating a statutory process for book banning. The law requires that any book challenged for “sexual conduct” must be removed during the review process, effectively creating a presumption against access until review completion. This approach has been linked to a dramatic increase in book removals, with PEN America reporting that Florida accounted for a substantial portion of the over 10,000 book bans recorded nationwide during the 2023-2024 school year.
Other states have enacted similar legislation with varying approaches. Utah’s HB 29 enforces what critics have called a “No Read List” in schools across the state, mandating that once any three districts find a title to be “objectively sensitive material,” it must be banned in all schools statewide. South Carolina’s Regulations 43-170 prohibits books with sex-related content and gives the state Board of Education power to ban books statewide. Tennessee’s HB 843 expands previous legislation to require schools to remove books containing nudity, “excess violence,” or sex-related content, while empowering a state commission to evaluate challenged titles and implement statewide bans.
These legislative efforts have generated significant legal challenges, with courts evaluating whether the laws violate First Amendment principles established in Pico and subsequent cases. The outcome of these challenges will likely shape the legal landscape for book access in schools for years to come, potentially establishing new precedents regarding the constitutionality of legislative restrictions on educational materials.
The Intersection of Book Bans and Equal Protection Concerns
Beyond First Amendment issues, book bans increasingly raise equal protection concerns when they disproportionately affect materials by or about marginalized groups. Legal scholars and advocates have argued that patterns of book removal targeting materials related to racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, or other protected groups may violate equal protection principles in addition to First Amendment protections.
Data from organizations tracking book bans lends support to these concerns. PEN America’s analysis of banned books has consistently found that a disproportionate number feature LGBTQ+ characters or themes, address issues of race and racism, or feature characters of color. During the 2023-2024 school year, PEN America noted that the dramatic increase in book bans included “continued attacks on books with LGBTQ+ characters or themes, or books about race or racism and featuring characters of color.”
While equal protection arguments have not yet featured prominently in court decisions on book bans, they represent a potentially significant additional legal avenue for challenging removal decisions. Courts might consider whether patterns of book removal reflect discriminatory intent or have discriminatory effects, particularly when removal decisions disproportionately restrict access to materials representing the experiences of marginalized groups. This approach would examine not just whether individual removal decisions were based on viewpoint discrimination, but whether the cumulative effect of multiple removals creates disparate impacts on certain communities.
The intersection of First Amendment and equal protection concerns highlights the complex constitutional dimensions of book ban controversies. As litigation continues to address these issues, courts may increasingly consider how book removal decisions affect educational equity and access to diverse perspectives, potentially expanding the legal framework for evaluating book bans beyond traditional First Amendment analysis.
The Role of Review Procedures in Legal Evaluation
Courts often consider the adequacy of review procedures when evaluating the constitutionality of book removal decisions. Transparent, consistent procedures for evaluating challenged materials generally receive greater judicial deference than ad hoc decisions made in response to individual complaints. This procedural focus reflects judicial recognition that how decisions are made often reveals underlying motivations and potential constitutional concerns.
Many school districts have adopted formal review policies that require thorough evaluation of challenged materials before any action is taken to restrict access. These policies typically involve committee review by educators, librarians, and community members; consideration of the work as a whole rather than isolated passages; and evaluation based on established criteria related to educational value, age-appropriateness, and community standards. Courts generally view such procedures favorably, as they help ensure that removal decisions are based on legitimate pedagogical concerns rather than viewpoint discrimination.
Conversely, courts have expressed skepticism toward removal decisions made without following established procedures or based on limited review of challenged materials. In several cases, courts have noted procedural irregularities as evidence suggesting impermissible motivations for book removals. For example, decisions to remove books based solely on isolated passages, without consideration of their overall literary or educational value, may indicate that the stated rationale for removal is pretextual.
The importance of procedural considerations extends to state legislation affecting book access. Courts evaluating such legislation may consider whether it establishes fair, viewpoint-neutral procedures for reviewing challenged materials or instead creates presumptions against certain content categories. Legislation mandating immediate removal upon challenge, without meaningful review, may face greater constitutional scrutiny than laws establishing balanced evaluation processes.
Balancing Parental Rights and Student Access
The legal approach to book bans must navigate the complex relationship between parental rights in education and students’ constitutional right to access information. Courts have consistently recognized both legitimate parental interests in guiding their children’s education and the importance of exposing students to diverse perspectives in a democratic society. This tension creates significant challenges for legal analysis of book ban cases.
Courts generally acknowledge that parents have the right to guide their own children’s education and to object to materials they find objectionable. However, this individual right does not extend to restricting access for all students based on some parents’ objections. As the court noted in Counts v. Cedarville School District, which addressed restrictions on the Harry Potter series, parental objections to books’ content do not justify removing them from libraries for all students.
Many schools have attempted to balance these competing interests by implementing opt-out procedures that allow individual parents to restrict their own children’s access to certain materials while maintaining availability for others. Courts have generally viewed such accommodations favorably, as they respect parental authority without imposing content restrictions on all students. Some schools have also created tiered access systems requiring parental permission for certain materials, though these approaches have sometimes faced legal challenges when applied broadly.
The balance between parental rights and student access remains a central tension in book ban controversies. Courts must determine when accommodations for parental concerns become impermissible restrictions on all students’ access to information. This analysis often turns on whether restrictions are narrowly tailored to address legitimate parental concerns without unnecessarily limiting educational opportunities for students whose parents have not objected to the materials.
The Impact of Community Standards on Legal Analysis
Courts evaluating book ban cases must consider how community standards influence the legal analysis of content restrictions in educational settings. While First Amendment principles apply nationwide, their application necessarily involves consideration of local context and evolving societal norms regarding appropriate educational content. This creates a complex interplay between constitutional protections and community values.
The concept of “educational suitability,” which Pico identified as a legitimate basis for book removal decisions, inherently involves consideration of community standards regarding age-appropriate content. Courts recognize that what constitutes suitable educational material may vary based on community context and student age, allowing reasonable content restrictions that reflect these considerations. However, courts distinguish between legitimate consideration of community standards regarding educational suitability and impermissible removal decisions based solely on ideological objections from some community members.
This distinction creates significant challenges for legal analysis, as courts must determine when removal decisions reflect legitimate community consensus regarding educational appropriateness versus when they represent viewpoint discrimination motivated by particular ideological perspectives within the community. Courts typically look for evidence that removal decisions were based on comprehensive evaluation of educational value rather than merely responding to vocal objections from certain community segments.
The concept of community standards in book ban cases has evolved over time, reflecting changing societal attitudes toward controversial content. Materials that might have been considered inappropriate for educational settings in earlier decades may now be widely accepted as valuable educational resources. Courts sometimes consider these evolving standards when evaluating whether current removal decisions reflect legitimate pedagogical concerns or outdated restrictions that no longer serve educational purposes.
Technological Considerations in Book Access Cases
Emerging digital technologies present new legal questions regarding book access in educational settings. As schools increasingly utilize digital libraries, e-books, and online learning platforms, traditional distinctions between library and classroom materials become blurred, creating novel challenges for applying established legal frameworks to contemporary educational environments.
Digital filtering technologies raise particular legal concerns when used to restrict access to electronic materials. Courts have questioned whether automated content filtering systems that block access based on keywords or algorithms may constitute impermissible prior restraint or viewpoint discrimination. Unlike traditional review processes involving human evaluation of complete works, algorithmic filtering may restrict access based on isolated terms without considering context or overall educational value.
The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to flag potentially controversial content in school materials raises additional constitutional questions. As schools adopt more sophisticated content filtering systems, courts must determine whether automated censorship mechanisms comply with First Amendment principles requiring content-based restrictions to be narrowly tailored and viewpoint-neutral. The potential for algorithmic bias or overblocking of legitimate educational content creates significant legal concerns.
Digital technologies also affect how courts evaluate the scope and impact of book restrictions. While traditional book removals involved physical copies in specific locations, digital restrictions can instantly limit access across entire school systems or even statewide. Courts may consider these broader impacts when evaluating whether digital access restrictions constitute impermissible burdens on First Amendment rights, potentially applying greater scrutiny to wide-ranging digital restrictions than to limited physical removals.
International Perspectives on Educational Content Restrictions
While American courts apply First Amendment analysis to book ban cases, examining international approaches to educational content restrictions provides valuable context for understanding different legal frameworks for balancing educational authority with expressive freedom. Various democratic nations have developed distinct approaches to these issues, reflecting different constitutional traditions and educational philosophies.
Many European countries approach educational content decisions through frameworks emphasizing professional educational judgment rather than judicial review. These systems typically grant significant authority to educational professionals and curriculum specialists, with limited judicial intervention absent clear evidence of discriminatory intent. However, European human rights frameworks also protect educational pluralism and prohibit indoctrination, creating boundaries for content restrictions similar to American viewpoint discrimination analysis.
Canada’s approach to educational content restrictions reflects a balance between local educational authority and Charter rights protections. Canadian courts have recognized that schools may legitimately restrict access to materials based on educational suitability while prohibiting restrictions motivated by discriminatory intent or religious doctrine in public education. This approach parallels American jurisprudence while reflecting Canada’s distinct constitutional framework emphasizing multiculturalism and equality.
International human rights instruments also provide relevant perspectives on educational content restrictions. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes both children’s right to access information and the role of education in developing respect for human rights and cultural identity. These principles suggest international consensus that educational content decisions should balance legitimate pedagogical concerns with respect for diverse perspectives and information access.
The Future of Book Ban Litigation
The legal landscape surrounding book challenges continues to evolve, with several emerging trends likely to shape future litigation in this area. As state legislatures enact new restrictions on educational materials and challenges to these laws proceed through the courts, significant new precedents may emerge regarding the constitutional boundaries of content restrictions in educational settings.
One significant trend involves increasing litigation challenging statewide book ban legislation rather than individual school district decisions. Cases like Book People v. Wong, challenging Texas’ READER Act, represent a shift toward addressing systemic legislative restrictions rather than case-by-case evaluation of specific book removals. This approach potentially allows courts to establish broader precedents regarding the constitutionality of legislative frameworks for content restriction rather than focusing on individual removal decisions.
Another emerging trend involves greater emphasis on equal protection arguments alongside traditional First Amendment analysis. As data increasingly demonstrates disproportionate impacts of book bans on materials representing marginalized communities, courts may more explicitly address whether patterns of removal decisions reflect discriminatory intent or create disparate impacts requiring constitutional remedy. This approach could expand the legal framework for evaluating book bans beyond traditional viewpoint discrimination analysis.
The increasing involvement of publishers, authors, and advocacy organizations as plaintiffs in book ban litigation represents another significant development. The Escambia County case established that authors and publishers have standing to challenge removal of their books from school libraries, potentially expanding the range of stakeholders who can bring legal challenges to book ban decisions. This broader participation may lead to more comprehensive legal challenges addressing multiple constitutional dimensions of book ban controversies.
Conclusion
The legal approach to book bans in educational settings reflects fundamental tensions between school authority, parental rights, and constitutional protections for access to information. Since the landmark Pico decision, courts have consistently held that while school boards maintain significant discretion in educational matters, they cannot remove books simply because they disagree with the ideas expressed within them. This principle continues to guide judicial evaluation of book ban controversies, even as specific applications evolve to address contemporary challenges.
Recent litigation demonstrates the ongoing vitality of First Amendment principles in this area, with courts continuing to scrutinize whether removal decisions reflect legitimate pedagogical concerns or impermissible viewpoint discrimination. As state legislatures enact new restrictions on educational materials and technology transforms how students access information, courts face increasingly complex questions about the constitutional boundaries of content restrictions in educational settings.
The legal approach to book bans in educational settings reflects fundamental tensions between school authority, parental rights, and constitutional protections for access to information. Since the landmark Pico decision, courts have consistently held that while school boards maintain significant discretion in educational matters, they cannot remove books simply because they disagree with the ideas expressed within them. This principle continues to guide judicial evaluation of book ban controversies, even as specific applications evolve to address contemporary challenges.
Recent litigation demonstrates the ongoing vitality of First Amendment principles in this area, with courts continuing to scrutinize whether removal decisions reflect legitimate pedagogical concerns or impermissible viewpoint discrimination. As state legislatures enact new restrictions on educational materials and technology transforms how students access information, courts face increasingly complex questions about the constitutional boundaries of content restrictions in educational settings.
The legal framework for addressing book bans continues to develop through case-by-case adjudication, with courts carefully examining the specific circumstances of each controversy. While this approach creates some uncertainty and variation across jurisdictions, it also allows courts to consider the unique context of each case and to adapt constitutional principles to changing educational environments. As litigation continues to address these issues, the legal system will continue to refine the balance between educational authority and constitutional protections, ensuring that students maintain access to diverse perspectives while respecting legitimate pedagogical concerns and community standards.
- https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the-usa-state-laws-supercharge-book-suppression-in-schools/
- https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks
- https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/courts-have-a-mixed-record-on-challenges-to-book-bans
- https://www.freedomforuminstute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/k-12-public-school-student-expression/book-censorship/
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2043
- https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/986/board-of-education-island-trees-union-free-school-district-v-pico
- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/21/more-than-a-third-of-u-s-parents-are-extremely-or-very-concerned-about-their-children-being-exposed-to-sexually-explicit-content-in-books/
- https://www.reuters.com/legal/5th-circuit-blocks-texas-book-rating-law-citing-free-speech-concerns-2024-01-17/
- https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-allows-lawsuit-over-florida-book-bans-to-proceed/
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/book-bans-are-targeting-black-and-lgbtq-authors-heres-how-theyre-fighting
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/governmental-regulation-of-school-libraries
- https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/opinion-the-first-amendment-and-book-bans-what-educators-need-to-know/2023/05
Citations:
- https://attorneys.media/teacher-student-book-rights/
- https://www.phelps.com/insights/what-to-know-about-school-book-bans-trends-and-forecasts.html
- https://libguides.law.uconn.edu/c.php?g=345484&p=2327922
- https://lawlibguides.sandiego.edu/c.php?g=1421168&p=10542274
- https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/on-demand/exposing-impact-curriculum-book-bans-education-public-not-few/
- https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/state-laws-are-behind-many-book-bans-even-indirectly-report-finds/2023/05
- https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/state-laws-on-book-bans-and-challenges/
- https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2024/01/fl-federal-court-holds-that-books-may-not-be-removed-from-school-libraries-for-ideological-reasons
- https://pen.org/memo-on-school-book-bans-2023-2024-school-year/
- https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2023/september/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-book-bans-sweeping-the-us/
- https://firstamendmentmuseum.org/how-do-books-get-banned/
- https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-ends-bidens-book-ban-hoax
- https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol98/iss3/8/
- https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the-usa-state-laws-supercharge-book-suppression-in-schools/
- https://www.freedomforum.org/book-banning-unconstitutional/
- https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html
- https://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Book-Bans-What-You-Can-Do-2023.pdf
- https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/government/book-banning-public-schools-libraries-2025-01-01/
- https://naacp.org/resources/challenges-public-education-book-bans-teacher-shortages-and-negative-effects-miseducation
- https://njsbf.org/2023/02/15/does-banning-books-violate-the-first-amendment/
- https://authorsguild.org/news/partial-victory-in-iowa-book-ban-case-a-step-forward-for-first-amendment-rights/
- https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/encyclopedia/case/book-banning-and-libraries/
- https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcases
- https://www.selendygay.com/news/publications/2024-07-29-recent-appellate-decisions-on-book-censorship
- https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/95030-the-cases-against-book-bans.html
- https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/book-banning/
- https://drexel.edu/law/lawreview/issues/Archives/v13-3/morris/
- https://www.aclu-nj.org/en/news/banning-books-act-censorship-and-it-can-take-many-forms-heres-how-spot-it
- https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/new-jersey-prohibits-book-bans/4049934/
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/books/book-bans-laws.html
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Libraries/comments/1gm3hfi/books_in_project_2025/
- https://ilovelibraries.org/article/u-s-book-challenges-update-february-2025-edition/
- https://www.ala.org/bbooks/book-ban-data
- https://pen.org/report/beyond-the-shelves/
- https://lindenwood.libguides.com/c.php?g=1351552&p=9977393
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_banning_in_the_United_States_(2021%E2%80%93present)
- https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/N3_Schroeder.pdf
- https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Ross-76-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1675.pdf
- https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.php?g=1084786&p=7908524
- https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/where-the-supreme-court-stands-on-banning-books/
- https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/a-framework-for-resisting-book-bans
- https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/
- https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/us/states-fight-book-bans-reaj/index.html
- https://www.everylibrary.org/fighting_for_the_right_to_read_week_by_week_in_2025
- https://www.everylibrary.org/billtracking
English 
Español de México