Book bans are nothing new. Throughout history, certain books have come under fire for content deemed inappropriate or controversial — often, that content is by and about people of color, the LGBTQ community, and other marginalized groups. As a spate of classroom censorship bills aim to erase discussions about race and gender in schools across the country, books about the same issues are being banned and challenged across public schools and libraries at an alarming rate. In 2021, the American Library Association recorded 729 book challenges, compared to 156 challenges received the year prior.

Read about some of the books that have most recently been banned or challenged for removal across public schools and libraries in our ‘ACLU Banned Book Club Reading List’ below.

NOTE: The following list includes books that have been formally removed or were recently challenged for removal from public schools or libraries.

https://shop.aclu.org/banned-books-bookmark/

1. "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison

Published in 1970, “The Bluest Eye” was Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winning author Toni Morrison’s first novel. Its 11-year-old protagonist, Pecola Breedlove, copes with racism and sexual abuse as she comes of age in 1940s Ohio. Despite its status as a seminal work by one of the foremost authors in American history, the book has been a frequent target of bans for content described as “sexually explicit material,” “disturbing language,” and an “underlying socialist-communist agenda.”

“The Bluest Eye” is one of the books at the center of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Missouri in February against Wentzville R-IV School District. The school district reversed its decision to ban the book shortly after the lawsuit filing, but litigation continues. Other recent challenges to the book have occurred in Mississippi, where Mayor Gene McGee of Ridgeland attempted to withhold over $100,000 in public funds from the Madison County Library System unless it purged it and other specific books, and in Virginia, where a school board in Virginia Beach removed the book from circulation, only to return it to shelves shortly after due to public outcry.

2. "Heather Has Two Mommies" by Lesléa Newman

The children’s book “Heather Has Two Mommies” tells the story of a young girl whose family does not look like those of her classmates. As the daughter of LGBTQ parents, Heather realizes she stands out when she draws a picture of her family for a classroom assignment. For over 30 years, the book has been an important example of LGBTQ+ representation and inclusion for young readers.

Recently, a superintendent at Pennridge School District in Pennsylvania requested its removal from elementary school library shelves for “referencing gender identity,” along with other books addressing LGBTQ+ issues.

3. "All Boys Aren’t Blue" by George Johnson

In “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” LGBTQ+ activist George M. Johnson writes about growing up Black and queer, including about his experiences being bullied, his first sexual relationships, and other stories throughout his childhood and adolescence in New Jersey and Virginia. The book is currently being targeted for removal by at least 14 states because of its LGBTQ+ themes.

The book is among those involved in the ACLU of Missouri’s lawsuit against Wentzville R-IV School District, filed in February. Other recent challenges occurred in Mississippi, where a mayor attempted to withhold over $100,000 in public funds from Madison County Library System unless it purged books with LGBTQ+ themes, and in Florida, where a member of Flagler County school board filed a report with the sheriff’s office in November 2021, claiming that having the book in school libraries is a crime.

4. "Gender Queer" by Maia Kobabe

Nonbinary and asexual author Maia Kobabe, who uses e/em/eir pronouns, details eir journey through adolescence and coming into eir self-identity in “Gender Queer,” an autobiographical graphic novel about what it’s like to not fit into traditional norms of gender and sexuality.

Recent challenges have occurred in Texas, where Keller Independent School District removed the book without proper review for what it described as “inappropriate images”; in Florida, where Brevard Public Schools pulled the book from library shelves in October 2021; in Virginia, where it was among books targeted for removal by Virginia Beach City Public School board; and in Illinois, where a group of parents in the Chicago suburb of Downers Grove are demanding the school district ban Gender Queer from high school libraries.

5. "Melissa"* by Alex Gino

*Formerly published as "George" until April 2022

The protagonist of the children’s novel “Melissa” is a fourth-grader coming into her own identity as a trans girl in a world that knows her only as “Melissa.” The author, who goes by they/them/their pronouns and identifies as genderqueer, wrote the book due to a longstanding void of voices like theirs in literature. “I wrote it because it was the book I wanted to read,” Gino explained. “I wanted trans voices telling trans stories.”

Since its publication in 2015, “Melissa” has been one of the most-challenged books for conflicting with “traditional family structure.” A recent challenge occurred in Florida, where it was pulled from libraries in Polk County along with 16 other books — many highlighting themes of race and LGBTQ+ issues.

6. "Stamped: Racism, Anti-Racism, and You" by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds

Author and historian Ibram X. Kendi partnered with children’s book author Jason Reynolds to write “Stamped: Racism, Anti-Racism, and You” — a National Book Award-winning work on the history of racism in America. But it’s not the standard type of history book, as its authors state in its opening pages.

This is NOT a history book.

This is a book about the here and now.

A book to help us better understand why we are where we are.

A book about race.

Rather, “Stamped” is a new form of telling history that melds past with present to engage young readers. The book also contains information on how readers can stamp out racism in their daily lives, and why there is hope for an anti-racist future.

According to the American Library Association, “Stamped” was one of the most challenged books of 2020 in schools. More recently, a middle school in Texas tried to remove the book from a reading list (though not library shelves). However, after a group of Black parents protested that removal, the book was returned to the list.

7. "All American Boys" by Jason Reynolds and Brendan Kiely

The young adult novel, “All American Boys” portrays themes of racism and police brutality as seen through the perspectives of its two teenage protagonists: Rashad Butler, who is Black, and Quinn Collins, who is white. In the story, Rashad is assaulted by a police officer who suspects him of stealing from a convenience store, and Quinn witnesses the encounter.

During the wave of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the book received an increase in attention and scrutiny. Complaints about the book often cite profanity and messages perceived as anti-police, divisive, or “too sensitive.”

8. "Lawn Boy" by Jonathan Evison

“Lawn Boy” is a semi-autobiographical story about Mike Muñoz, a young Mexican American navigating poverty, sexuality, and self-identity as he comes of age in Washington state. The book has been a target of bans for containing content described as “homoerotic.”

The book is among those involved in the ACLU of Missouri’s lawsuit against Wentzville R-IV School District, filed in February.

9. "The Hate U Give" by Angie Thomas

The protagonist of “The Hate U Give” is 16-year-old Starr Carter, a student at an affluent prep school who comes from a low-income community. The delicate balance between the two worlds she navigates reaches a tipping point when she witnesses the fatal shooting of her childhood friend, Khalil, at the hands of police, and the ensuing public debate as the news spreads throughout the community.

Despite its popularity, the book has been a target of bans for containing profanity and “anti-police” messages. It has been challenged in schools across the country, including in Texas, where Katy Independent School District banned it in 2017; in Illinois, where it has been banned by ROWVA school district since 2018; and in Pennsylvania, where Dubois Area School District announced in November 2021 that students would need parental consent to read it.

10. "Between the World and Me" by Ta-Nehisi Coates

National Book Award-winning “Between the World and Me” is a semi-autobiographical work about racism in America. The story is told through a letter from the author to his 15-year-old son. Its frank discussions about race have made it controversial in schools and incarceration facilities seeking to ban it.

In October 2021, “Between the World and Me” was included in a list of school library books targeted for investigation by Texas Rep. Matt Krause during the state’s ongoing debate about banning “critical race theory” from classrooms.

The ACLU is actively pursuing litigation to block government action that bans books from library shelves because of disagreement with the viewpoints they express, or disapproval of the life experiences they describe, including many of the books listed above. Recently, the ACLU of Missouri filed a lawsuit suing the Wentzville R-IV School District for banning eight books — including “The Bluest Eye,” “Lawn Boy,” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” — from school library shelves. After the lawsuit was filed, the school board voted to rescind the ban of “The Bluest Eye.”

Students have the right to receive an inclusive education free from censorship or discrimination, and book bans infringe on that right. As we continue to fight these unconstitutional laws and policies in court, you can also join the fight by pledging to support students’ right to learn and read the books being banned.

Like many people who live in San Diego, Christian Ramirez, a community organizer and human rights advocate, frequently crosses into Mexico to visit family members. One June afternoon, Mr. Ramirez witnessed male U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry inspecting and patting down female travelers, in contravention of agency policy. Concerned that the officers were abusing their authority, Mr. Ramirez took a dozen or so photographs on his cell phone. While doing so, he was standing outside on the United States side of the border and recording publicly visible law enforcement activity — which is protected by the First Amendment. Yet federal officials aggressively accosted Mr. Ramirez, forcibly took his cell phone, and deleted his photographs — effectively interfering with Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional right to record.

The right to record is critical for holding law enforcement, especially CBP officials, accountable for abuses at the border. Recording and documenting interactions with federal law enforcement officers are especially critical tools for over-policed, hyper-surveilled border communities. CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States, and it is also one of the deadliest: Over the past 12 years, more than 200 people have died in encounters with CBP officials, including U.S. Border Patrol agents. For years, CBP tried to prevent the public from documenting the agency’s abuses at and near U.S. land ports of entry. CBP officials would threaten, harass, and assail people who took photographs or recordings of law enforcement activity in public view in outdoor and unrestricted areas near the border.

The ACLU has put a stop to that.

In September 2020, we achieved a landmark settlement in our long-running First Amendment lawsuit, Askins et al. v. DHS et al. In Askins, we represented Mr. Ramirez and Ray Askins, an environmental advocate who CBP officials accosted at the Calexico Port of Entry when he tried to take photographs of idling vehicles in the port’s secondary inspection area. CBP insisted that the First Amendment right to photograph and record matters of public interest exposed to public view from outdoor and otherwise unrestricted areas did not apply to any place the federal government unilaterally designated as “the border.” As a result of our lawsuit, the federal government was forced to concede that there is no border exception to this First Amendment right.

Our settlement has strengthened several protections that will help ensure people who live in border communities or frequently travel across U.S. land ports of entry will be able to fully exercise their right to record:

First, the settlement maintains that U.S. government officials cannot interfere with people’s First Amendment rights to “make and retain photographs, video recordings, or other recordings” of law enforcement activity from a “Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the United States.” A “Publicly Accessible Area” is defined as “an outdoor area at a land port of entry where a member of the public is permitted to be regardless of whether they intend to cross the United States border.” The settlement thus protects the public’s right to take photographs and other recordings from publicly accessible areas at all land ports of entry in the United States (but not at airports).

Second, the settlement prohibits U.S. government officials from requiring members of the public to obtain prior authorization to record and document at the border. This means members of the general public have a right to record and capture law enforcement abuses they might see at a land port of entry in real time, without worrying about needing the government’s prior consent.

Third, the settlement states that U.S. government officials can’t “unlawfully seize, delete, destroy, alter, or otherwise inhibit any individual’s access to photographs, video recordings, or other recordings taken from a Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the United States.”

Fourth, the settlement makes clear that taking photographs, video recordings, or other recordings from a Publicly Accessible Area at any land port of entry in the U.S. is not unlawful activity.

Fifth, the settlement does allow U.S. government officials to restrict photography or other recordings in “Restricted Access Areas.” A “Restricted Access Area” is defined as “any area within a land port of entry’s boundaries that is used regularly by the Department of Homeland Security … to process or inspect individuals or vehicles crossing an international border.” This means that U.S. government officials may restrict photography or recording at certain points of inspection, inside port buildings, or in other areas delineated as “restricted access.”

The Askins settlement represents a significant victory in safeguarding the long-established First Amendment right to photograph and record law enforcement — which, in turn, is essential to ensuring that law enforcement officials are held accountable for civil rights violations and other misconduct, including along our borders.

American Civil Liberties Union

Help Us Hold CBP Officials Accountable

In September 2020, the ACLU secured a landmark settlement agreement protecting individuals’ First Amendment right to photograph and record...

This week the Supreme Court will hear a case that could entrench the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces people seeking asylum to await their court dates in dangerous conditions in Mexico. The Remain in Mexico Policy, misleadingly dubbed the “Migrant Protection Protocols” created a humanitarian disaster at the border and has been the subject of ACLU lawsuits since it was first implemented in 2019.

President Biden made a campaign promise to end Remain in Mexico, recognizing the grave harm it subjects people seeking asylum to. Biden followed through on his promise and terminated the policy. But Texas and Missouri sued, and a federal Texas district court judge ordered the federal government to restart the program.

The Biden administration has tried multiple times to end the policy, including by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the order on an emergency basis – a move the ACLU supported in an amicus brief – but the Court declined to do so. The Biden administration has been forced to resume the policy while litigation continues.

Biden v. Trump has now made its way up to the Supreme Court to be heard on the merits. Here is what’s at stake.

The lower court decision under review by the Supreme Court would effectively keep the Trump administration’s shameful Remain in Mexico policy in place indefinitely, even though the policy did not exist under multiple administrations (including the Trump Administration before 2019).

This decision is contrary to a fundamental principle of a democracy: A new administration, selected by the people, should be empowered to reject its predecessor’s policies and adopt those it believes are in the public interest. The government is, of course, constrained by statutes, including the requirement to provide reasoning for its policy decisions. But by upending the normal rules that govern agency decisions and unjustifiably locking in Trump’s policy, the lower court overstepped its role as a neutral enforcer of the rules.

The anti-democratic implications of that holding are deeply troubling, and the Supreme Court must reject it.

In ordering the Biden administration to resume the Remain in Mexico policy, the lower courts held that immigration law limits the federal government to only two options when people seek asylum at the border: detain them or forcibly return them to Mexico before their hearing. Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacks capacity to detain all people seeking asylum, the judge reasoned that the only choice would be to send them to Mexico while their cases proceed.

This is a patently false choice. Congress has stipulated that DHS has broad power to avoid unnecessarily detaining people and to release people to their networks of care while their immigration cases proceed. In fact, all presidential administrations have exercised broad discretion to release people rather than restricting DHS to two binary choices – including the Trump administration itself.

Most importantly, at stake is whether the U.S. will continue to be a country that allows people fleeing persecution to seek safety inside its borders. Remain in Mexico, and other related policies, like Title 42, which has shut down access to asylum at the southern border for over two years under the guise of public health, are attempts to dismantle longstanding U.S. asylum policy that uphold our commitment to international human rights norms.

During the two years the policy was in effect under Trump, Human Rights First documented over 1,540 reported cases of kidnappings, murder, torture, rape, and other forms of violence against asylum seekers returned to Mexico. U.S. and Mexican authorities have failed to establish adequate housing options or to provide access to medical care and work, leaving people vulnerable to transnational cartels who prey on migrants. Black and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers returned to Mexico have faced particularly severe risks.

If the Supreme Court prevents the Biden administration from ending Remain in Mexico, it will enshrine a new legacy for the United States – a legacy of turning its back on international commitments and sending people directly into harm’s way.