Anti-Book Ban Laws: Why Book Removals Still Happen

How can a state with an anti-book ban law still produce national leaders in school book removals? Minnesota's 2024 statute bars public libraries from removing books based on their messages and ideas, but two Minnesota schools have still ranked among the country's top book-ban offenders over the past two years, according to a School Library Journal report.

The law has no enforcement mechanism, so the gap between what it says and what happens on shelves is a central problem for the future of librarianship. In Minnesota, Utah, and Tennessee, removals are moving through lists, deadlines, and board policies that anti-ban language does not reach. Librarians are left managing risk without a safety net, a reality reshaping modern librarian roles.

What Anti-Book Ban Laws Actually Do (And Don't)

Freedom to Read laws are easier to name than to enforce. They generally do two things: state a principle against removing books because of viewpoint, and attach a procedure that makes removal deliberate rather than automatic. The law may require written selection and reconsideration policies, keep challenged material available during review, limit who can file a challenge, or assign removal decisions to a school board or library board governance.

Levers states use

• Policy requirements: written selection, reconsideration, and viewpoint-neutrality standards.
• Challenge procedures: objections trigger a formal review, sometimes with books kept in place during review.
• Funding conditions: Illinois ties state library grants to anti-removal policies; Maryland ties state funding to compliant policies.
• Limited enforcement: Minnesota allows an injured person to sue but does not create agency enforcement or penalties.

Restriction vs. process

The key split is between laws that restrict removals and laws that only require a process. A process-only law can still end in removal, just with more steps.

Where things stand

As of 2026, roughly 13 states have some form of anti-book-ban or Freedom to Read law, and a narrower count identifies eight with explicit school-library removal limits. Restrictive laws are moving in parallel, including statewide lists in Utah and South Carolina. Most anti-ban laws leave out penalties, required reporting, or a dedicated enforcement body, so compliance depends on local administrators and political will.

The Enforcement Gap: Minnesota's Law and Continued Removals

Eighty books. That is the number removed from North Woods School in Cook, Minnesota, after parent objections to books and lesson plans recommended by a newly hired library assistant.¹

Minnesota's 2024 law, codified at Minnesota Statutes 134.51, bars public libraries from banning, removing, or restricting access based solely on viewpoint, message, idea, or opinion. But as School Library Journal reports, the law lacks enforcement mechanisms, and University of Minnesota professor emerita Jane Kirtley put the problem plainly: "The trouble with any kind of law dealing with restrictions on speech is that it's not self-executing."

What Enforcement Would Look Like

Without a working process, a ban-protection statute is an aspiration. Practical enforcement requires at least one of these: - Complaint process: A clear route for reporting viewpoint-based removals. - Oversight body: A state or district office with authority to review decisions. - Reporting requirement: A timeline and format for documenting removals. - Penalty: A consequence that makes noncompliance costly. Draft language for the 2024 bill proposed a private civil action and up to $5,000 per violation, but the enacted statute available online no longer displays that remedy.²

The Public-School Gap

Minnesota's law is often summarized as a public-library protection, though its text also touches public school and higher-education libraries. That broad coverage has not stopped school removals. According to Minnesota Book Bans in Schools, Minnesota ranked fifth nationally for banned books in 2026, and two Minnesota schools have ranked among national leaders in library book bans over the past two years despite the 2024 prohibition. North Woods School called its 80-book removal a review, not a ban, a reminder that school library management can rename a mass removal as routine collection work even when a state anti-ban law nominally applies.

Removals Under Other Rules: Utah's 44 Titles and Jefferson County's 34-Title List

State-level anti-ban language has not stopped school systems from using named title lists and tight deadlines to pull books, and the most direct evidence comes from Utah and Jefferson County, Tennessee.

Utah: One Statewide List, Seven New Titles

In September 2026, the Utah State Board of Education added seven titles to its statewide prohibited list, raising the total to 44, as reported in Utah Bans 7 More Books From All Public Schools. The newly banned books are House of Earth and Blood by Sarah J. Maas, Identical and Perfect by Ellen Hopkins, Kingdom of the Cursed by Kerri Maniscalco, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl by Jesse Andrews, The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue by V.E. Schwab, and Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout. None of those titles was available in elementary schools, according to available information.¹

The board also launched a $60,000 School Library Materials Acquisition and Procurement Review.² The review was prompted by questions about outside organizations and vendors and covers fiscal analysis, supply-chain and procurement contracts, regulatory steps, library staff qualifications, and parent complaint logs along with district responses. Districts had until October 16, 2026, to decide whether to join the review's data-gathering and survey phase.¹

Jefferson County: A 34-Title Deadline

In Jefferson County, Tennessee, newly elected school board member Michelle Jinnette presented a 34-title list under the heading "Content Warning" at the October 1, 2026, board meeting.³ The motion asked that the books be reviewed for removal from Jefferson County High School and Patriot Academy libraries. It cited Tennessee Public Chapter 782, effective July 1, 2024, and local board policy 4.403, and it required the director of schools to report back with explanations for any books not removed by the October 26 work session.³

The state law bars school libraries from carrying books that depict sexual excitement or sexual conduct.³ During the review, two titles were removed, and the board voted unanimously to have administrators review the remaining 32 and report at the October 26 session.⁴ Public reporting does not confirm what happened at or after that work session, including whether the board ratified the remaining removals or changed its position. Conflicting accounts differ on whether 32 or all 34 were ultimately removed from circulation.³⁴

The Common Thread: Justify or Remove

Both cases show the same operational pattern. A named list arrives, a short deadline follows, and library staff must justify keeping each challenged book. The burden shifts from the challenger proving harm to the librarian proving the book's value in collection development, and the absence of a clear enforcement mechanism in some state laws does not protect titles from being removed through separate school board processes.

School vs. Public Library Book Ban Laws: Who Is Covered and Who Decides?

Who actually has the power to remove a school book depends on where you work: state legislation may set limits, but local school boards, state boards, and legislatures each hold different pieces of authority. The table below shows how several recent anti-book-ban laws treat public and school libraries. A school librarian should always confirm whether their state law covers schools, because a public-library-only provision offers no statutory protection.

Weeding vs. Book Banning: Where the Line Falls

Routine weeding removes materials using prewritten, viewpoint-neutral criteria: accuracy, currency, relevance, condition, use, duplicate copies, space, edition, or format.¹ It should never be used to deselect materials because they are controversial. Viewpoint-based removal is different. It changes access because of content, message, origin, background, views, or a complaint, even when the label used is "weeding."¹

Questions that separate weeding from banning

• What triggered the removal? A condition or circulation review, or a complaint?
• Were the criteria written down and dated before the decision?
• Are the same criteria applied to similar titles, including those no one objected to?
• Did an informal concern or formal reconsideration request come first?

"Collection maintenance" can become a cover for viewpoint-based removal when the rationale is vague or applied after the fact. Written, dated deselection criteria protect librarians because they show the decision followed policy, not pressure. The ALA Library Bill of Rights says materials should not be excluded because of origin, background, or views, and it calls on libraries to challenge censorship.² Office for Intellectual Freedom guidance adds the operational layer: separate routine weeding from concerns, complaints, and formal challenges; require a completed reconsideration form; apply the same selection criteria; document the decision; and report challenges for confidential support.³

Related Articles