Suzette Baker.

Brooky Parks.

Patty Hector.

Rhea Young.

Terri Lesley.

Texas.

Colorado.

Arkansas.

Texas.

Wyoming.

These five names and the four states in which they live and work represent something significant. Each of these librarians was fired for standing up against censorship when it was demanded of them, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, and successfully settled their cases. None of them won much money, but in none of the cases was the money the point. No quarter of a million dollar settlement is enough to undo the damage of being fired, of being publicly dragged, of losing one’s income and health insurance, or of seeing one’s reputation be tarnished for upholding their ethical obligation to the field of librarianship.

But every single one of these settlements is a significant win right now. Each represents a librarian who did their job by defending the First Amendment rights of every person in their community. Each also represents something we simply have not seen play out well in the courts right now: decisive insight into whether public libraries exist to serve the will of the taxpayers or the political whims of whatever party is in charge.

Though there are numerous ongoing federal cases, what we’ve seen from the courts thus far in library censorship lawsuits has been the right’s assault on freedoms for all deemed legal. Little v. Llano County in the Fifth Circuit last year stated that library collections in three states–Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas–were allowed to be reflections of the political beliefs of those in charge and not, in fact, the needs or interests of those whose tax money pays for those libraries. That case has been cited beyond those three states as justification for widespread book censorship in both public and school libraries, including in Crookshanks et al. v. Elizabeth School District, a case out of Colorado now in the 10th Circuit.

Little v. Llano County wasn’t the only major court loss for the freedom to read. After three years in the judicial system, the Eighth Circuit handed down a decision in favor of the defendants in Fayetteville Public Library v. Todd Murray. The case challenged the legality of Arkansas’s Act 372, which amends state laws by including librarians and booksellers among those who can be criminally charged for distributing or providing materials deemed “harmful to minors” (“distributing” means anything from handing the book to someone who asks for it to simply having the book on shelves in the library or in Friends of the Library book sales or on displays and so on). The law also allows anyone to challenge the “appropriateness” of materials, which would face a public hearing to determine whether they can remain on shelves or must be removed. Arkansas libraries are scrambling to figure out how to be in compliance by doing things such as banning anyone under 18 from borrowing comics or manga or DVDs or anything in the adult areas of the library. Some libraries are now prohibiting those under 18 from using self-checkout.

While several other cases remain in the courts, it’s hard not to see where the Supreme Court will be waiting to take up cases that allow their conservative majority to spend even more time talking about gender, sexuality, and what’s happening in children’s underpants. There are multiple cases primed for just that, including Penguin Random House v. Gibson in the 11th Circuit and Theis v. InterMountain Education Service District Board of Directors in the Ninth. There’s also the amended case in the Eighth Circuit over Iowa’s anti-trans, anti-LGBT+ Senate File 496, which requires the removal of books deemed to depict “sex acts” in them; unfortunately, the amended filing from the plaintiffs fails to include a single LGBTQ+ book among the titles being cited, despite the law itself being about LGBTQ+ discrimination.

But back to those individuals.

Every one of the settlements for the five librarians above occurred when those librarians were told to remove books. None of them would comply, and as a result, they were fired from their jobs. Each one of those cases represented wrongful termination on the grounds of not complying with censorship directives. This suggests several things, one of the biggest ones being that defendants in each case worried that they would not win the case, and it was easier–and less pricey–to settle outside the courtroom.

More interesting and more perplexing is how these wins stand in opposition to the decisions rendered in non-employee cases. Suzette Baker was the head of Llano County Public Library’s Kingsland branch when she was fired. The same Llano County where patrons were told that they don’t have a right to a diverse collection because the materials in the library were subject to the political whims of local leaders is the same Llano County Public Library that agreed they could not fire a librarian for refusing to comply with censorship directives. This is a contradictory statement about the First Amendment in the library.

Llano County isn’t the lone example.

This is playing out now in Arkansas. The decision to allow Act 372 to go into effect–a law that lays out in specificity what the punishments for librarians and educators could be were they to as much as have a book deemed by a single political party as “harmful to minors”–happened just days before Patty Hector reached a settlement in her case against Saline County for wrongful termination (n.b., Saline County is currently being investigated for potentially putting an illegal measure on their upcoming ballot that aims to reduce library funding). Hector was fired from her post as executive director of the library when she spoke up against local conservative efforts to censor LGBTQ+ and BIPOC books, as well as books about puberty and sexuality, in the youth areas of the library.

The Arkansas Advocate, in its coverage of Hector’s settlement, notes the clear confusion and contradictions inherent in this case and the decision over Act 372. Librarians won’t know what they can do, nor know the extent or limits of the First Amendment rights granted to them to ethically do their job, until someone’s work or voice is threatened. Hector’s settlement suggests that library workers don’t shed their rights to do their job and serve the needs of the whole community. Yet, the new law explicitly outlines the punishments library workers face for not bowing to manufactured panic by conservatives over “indoctrination” and materials “harmful to minors.”

And if Texas’s Lieutenant Governor’s wishes to strip a whole letter grade from schools across the state for failing to remove books on a conservative activist’s hit list–one created by other far-right conservatives across the country and not, no matter how much they say, on the local level meant to leverage “local control”–we’ll only see these individual cases further contradicting who does and does not have rights in the library. Can those schools sue the state for infringing on their rights? Can librarians who are being turned into little more than tools of the regime push back?

If the current landscape is any indication, those cases have pretty strong legal precedent. But there are tremendous hurdles, beginning with time and financial means to pursue litigation.

Of course, even amid contradictory rulings from the judicial system, the point isn’t who is or isn’t granted First Amendment rights. The point is quiet compliance. The hope is that by passing cruel and overly broad laws, library workers and educators will simply do what they’re told, even and especially if it’s outside the legal and ethical mandates of their profession. Because at the end of the day, this is about dismantling of a profession and the dismantling of systems meant to uphold truth and fact, not partisan sycophancy and authoritarianism.

That the cases above have been won only through settlement underscores that the point is to get away with as much as possible, as quietly as possible.

Fortunately for those of us who believe in the power of public goods and democratic institutions, as well as those who make these spaces true spaces of civic engagement, each and every one of these individual wins adds up.

Book Censorship News: September 11, 2026
  • The Librarians has won an Emmy.
  • The Texas Lieutenant Governor’s threats to downgrade school ratings, plus the state’s new book bans laws, has led to the exact chilling intended. Librarians across the state don’t want to talk about books nor purchase new ones.
  • “A Somerset County School Board [MD] policy that makes young adult books in school libraries unavailable to almost all students in county schools violates state law and the First Amendment, an appeal to the State Board of Education claims.” Of course it does. Seeing Maryland enforce their anti-book ban law is refreshing.
  • A queer librarian talks about how quiet censorship is the biggest issue in book banning right now.
  • The Salt Lake City Tribune (UT) talks about what a waste of time and money the state board’s plan to find out if publishers are pushing porn in school libraries is worth a read. Even more interesting is seeing a member of the paper’s editorial board recuse herself of the editorial.
  • Here’s a great piece on how young people–too young to vote–still helped flip a Florida school board race.
  • Librarian Julie Miller–you may know that name from the Emmy-award winning film The Librarians–talks about how Clay County Schools (FL) are losing their libraries through funding and staffing cuts (in addition to all of the bans being perpetrated by one person in the county).
  • How Arkansas libraries are handling the implementation of Act 372.
  • Dothan Houston County Library System (AL) has city funding for next year, despite some complaints from community members citing the same tied lies about pornography and a city commissioner being mad that the library lends out things like leaf blowers.
  • Here’s a great editorial in a New York paper about whether or not the state’s governor believes in the freedom to read, given how she still won’t sign an anti-book ban bill (and decided not to sign one last year).
  • Heartland Signal did a deep dive into the bills that revoke social progress across the US these last two years. It’s worth reading, and it’ll also be eye-opening how many times you see book bans and libraries.
  • Boise Public Library (ID) won’t be removing Princess Pete by Zoey Allen from shelves. Love a right-wing copy-paste complaint: “Citing the American College of Pediatricians, an anti-LGBTQ and religious conservative advocacy group, petitioners said the story promoted body confusion. In their request, they wrote they were concerned it was developmentally inappropriate and asked the library to remove picture books that “socially affirm” gender fluidity.”
  • A parent in Worthington, Ohio, is complaining about Heartstopper being available in the local middle school. That parent is seeking “help” from Take Back the Classroom in her campaign to get the title removed from all students.

On a personal note, I’ve launched an independent podcast about literary advocacy called Liberating Lit. The limited-run show will have two seasons. Each episode invites a guest who has been doing freedom to read work to talk about what they do, how they stay motivated, and more. The goal of the show is to spark action in those who have been interested in doing work but don’t know where to begin, as well as to help refill the cups of those who have been doing the work. You can read more about the podcast here, and you can tune in at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or on the podcast’s website.