All but seven of the 56 books the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District removed from school libraries must be reshelved by next week, pending a trial next year, ruled U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason on Tuesday.

The banned books, including well-known titles like Toni Morrison鈥檚 鈥淭he Bluest Eye,鈥� Kurt Vonnegut鈥檚 鈥淪laughterhouse-Five鈥� and Khaled Hosseini鈥檚 鈥淭he Kite Runner,鈥� were removed from schools last year without individual consideration of their content after parents and community members complained of 鈥淟GBTQ themes鈥� or sexually explicit content in district meetings.

Gleason鈥檚 order said the district鈥檚 action violated students鈥� constitutional rights and 鈥渞aises the specter of official suppression of ideas.鈥� That caused irreparable harm, and would continue to do so if they stayed off library shelves until trial, her order found. The order is a preliminary injunction; the books鈥� ultimate fate will be determined in a trial scheduled for April of next year.

The district released a statement on Thursday that said the order is in line with work the school board has undertaken in the last year, which includes reviewing the books and returning some to library shelves. 鈥淭he Court鈥檚 decision directs the District to report on what it has already done including the reshelving of books as directed by the Board,鈥� the statement said, in part.

Savannah Fletcher, the attorney for the plaintiffs with the Northern Justice Project, said the court鈥檚 ruling shows that the Constitution doesn鈥檛 allow the government to remove books without a compelling reason for an indefinite period of time.

鈥淭he Constitution doesn鈥檛 allow the government to remove ideas simply because some people disagree with them,鈥� she said.

鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a really great reminder during this time of tension around our schools, around students rights and parents rights and the protection of teachers and educators, that there is a baseline we all have to follow, and our Constitution is going to protect that. It really reaffirms the rights of students to access ideas, to access information.鈥�

The case comes against the backdrop of a about which books and what kind of material should be available to students. Fletcher said the Alaska case is unique because the district removed such a large quantity of books without individual review.

鈥淭his has never been written about by a court before. It is kind of a novel spin on it,鈥� Fletcher said, adding that the lack of precedent presented a challenge when briefing the court.

Meanwhile, some books have already been approved to go back to library shelves by the community. After the district removed them, it established a library committee, a majority of whose members were selected by the school board. The committee was tasked with determining whether the books were 鈥渃riminally indecent鈥� and it allowed more than a dozen books to return to schools, according to court filings. Another 14 titles were referred to the district for a final decision; others were not reviewed or found to be out of circulation or missing entirely. The court鈥檚 decision overrides these determinations, unless the school administration or board provides the court with a compelling reason to remove a specific title.

Scott Adams and his wife Dawn were plaintiffs in the case with their middle school-aged daughter, who he said is an avid reader and fan of the Harry Potter series.

He said he joined the lawsuit because the family felt the district鈥檚 action was a violation of the First Amendment and he was 鈥渆cstatic鈥� with Tuesday鈥檚 order.

鈥淚 took an oath when I joined the military over 30 years ago. And the oath 鈥� to support and defend the Constitution 鈥� doesn鈥檛 end when you leave the military,鈥� he said.

He said he wants to see a better process for deciding which books should be in the library, and said teachers and librarians should be trusted with those decisions.

The seven books that will remain off the shelves for indecency in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough school district are 鈥淐all Me by Your Name,鈥� 鈥淰erity,鈥� 鈥淚t Ends with Us,鈥� 鈥淯gly Love,鈥� 鈥淎 Court of Mist and Fury,鈥� 鈥淎 Court of Silver Flames鈥� and 鈥淵ou鈥� Their removal will be reviewed with the others in the trial next year.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com. Follow Alaska Beacon on and .

This story was updated on May 28 at 5 p.m.

Patrick Keefe says he just wanted to teach Toni Morrison鈥檚 鈥淏eloved.鈥�

The high school English teacher has long included the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about slavery in his curriculum at Litchfield鈥檚 Campbell High School. And in the past, he had questioned students about whether Morrison鈥檚 themes about the legacy of slavery applied to the present.

But after a state law passed in 2021 that regulated how teachers may talk about race and other concepts to students, Keefe became more cautious, he testified in a deposition last year. Any student-led discussion about structural racism might lead to a complaint under the new law, and might cause Keefe to lose his teaching license, he feared.

On Tuesday, a federal judge cited Keefe and other teachers鈥� examples in an order striking down the law, siding with teachers unions and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and ruling that the law is unconstitutionally vague.

In , Judge Paul Barbadoro held that the law, known by opponents as the 鈥渄ivisive concepts鈥� or 鈥渂anned concepts鈥� law, violated teachers鈥� 14th Amendment rights because it is too vague for them to follow.

鈥淭he Amendments are viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,鈥� Barbadoro wrote, referring to the statutory changes passed by the law.

The law prohibits K-12 public school staff from any instruction that advocates for four concepts: that a person of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristic is inherently 鈥渟uperior鈥� to another; that any individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive against another for any characteristic; that an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment for any characteristic; and that people of one characteristic 鈥渃annot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to鈥� one of their characteristics.

The characteristics covered by the law are a person鈥檚 鈥渁ge, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.鈥�

The law, which was in part modeled after an executive order by President Donald Trump that applied to federal employees and was repealed by President Joe Biden, was presented by Republican lawmakers as an anti-discrimination statute meant to ensure that all students were treated equally. It came as Republican lawmakers raised concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts implemented in public schools, and argued that teachers were espousing 鈥渃ritical race theory鈥� in classrooms.

The law allowed parents to bring complaints to the state鈥檚 Commission for Human Rights against teachers and school staff who they believed violated the new anti-discrimination statute. And it gave the State Board of Education the power to revoke educators鈥� teaching licenses if they were found by the commission to be in violation.

But teachers unions and others raised concerns that the prohibited concepts were too unclear to follow and would result in educators self-censoring instruction around certain topics such as race or gender for fear of losing their teaching credentials.

In his order Tuesday, Barbadoro sided with the state鈥檚 two teachers unions 鈥� the National Education Association of New Hampshire (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers of New Hampshire (AFT) 鈥� who had argued that the law violated their 14th Amendment rights because it did not provide clear guidance of what teachers should or shouldn鈥檛 teach.

Barbadoro鈥檚 ruling grants 鈥渄eclaratory relief鈥� to plaintiffs, meaning he is ruling that the law is unconstitutional, but it does not grant 鈥渋njunctive relief鈥� 鈥� a stricter ruling that would have stopped the state from carrying out the law. In his order, Barbadoro wrote that he didn鈥檛 believe he needed the latter relief because he believed the state would respect the ruling and stop enforcing the law.

The ruling was a setback for the state, which had argued that the Attorney General鈥檚 Office had given teachers sufficient guidance in a 鈥淔requently Asked Questions鈥� released in 2021 that outlined scenarios in which teachers would violate or not violate the law.

There are no known cases of New Hampshire teachers who have been found by the Commission for Human Rights to have violated the law.

But Barbadoro said there were a number of scenarios that the FAQs did not address. One such unanswered question centered on Keefe鈥檚 attempts to teach 鈥淏eloved.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

According to his deposition, Keefe had asked for clarity from his school鈥檚 administration but 鈥渨as told there was none available other than the Attorney General鈥檚 Frequently Asked Questions,鈥� Barbadoro noted.

Barbadoro also noted the example of Jennifer Given, a former high school social studies teacher at the Hollis Brookline High School who 鈥渇elt the need to significantly modify her teaching methods 鈥榦ut of fear that [she] would be accused of鈥� violating the Amendments, regardless of whether she was actually doing so.鈥�

And he argued that the uncertainty applied to extracurricular activities as well, citing the testimony of Ryan Richman, a high school history teacher at Timberlane Regional High School. Richman said as a faculty adviser for the school鈥檚 Model United Nations team, he felt the law hampered his ability to help students for their competition in fear of saying something that might be seen as a violation.

Barbadoro used the examples to bolster his larger conclusion.

鈥淭he Amendments are vague not because they subject teachers to severe professional sanctions, but because they fail to provide teachers with sufficient notice of what is prohibited and raise the specter of arbitrary and discretionary enforcement,鈥� he ruled.

He also said that the vagueness would allow state officials to apply their own arbitrary interpretations to enforcement.

鈥溾�� Because the Amendments fail to establish 鈥榤inimal guidelines to govern [their] enforcement,鈥� officials are free to 鈥榩ursue their personal predilections鈥� when applying the law,鈥� Barbadoro wrote.

The decision was hailed by the plaintiffs; Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, called it 鈥渁 victory for academic freedom and an inclusive education for all New Hampshire students.鈥�

鈥淣ew Hampshire鈥檚 鈥榖anned concepts鈥� law stifled New Hampshire teachers鈥� efforts to provide a true and honest education,鈥� agreed NEA-NH President Megan Tuttle in a statement. 鈥淪tudents, families, and educators should rejoice over this court ruling which restores the teaching of truth and the right to learn for all Granite State students.鈥�

And it was cheered on by Democrats, including the two lead Democratic candidates for governor. Former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig praised the plaintiffs who 鈥渇ought this unconstitutional law.鈥� In her own statement, Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington said, 鈥淭eachers should be free to teach 鈥� the truth 鈥� and students should be free to learn.鈥�

Republicans said they would redouble efforts to pass the bill. In a statement, former state Senate President Chuck Morse, a Republican candidate for governor who had helped push for the law in the Senate, said he was 鈥渄eeply disappointed鈥� in the decision but vowed to press on.

鈥淎s Governor, I will work tirelessly with lawmakers, educators, and community leaders to draft and pass a stronger bill that addresses the court鈥檚 concerns while keeping our fundamental goal intact: to prevent the dissemination of any materials that promote racial superiority or inferiority,鈥� Morse said.

In a post on X, State Rep. Keith Ammon, a New Boston Republican, wrote: 鈥淛udge Barbadoro just put stopping Critical Race Theory back on the ballot in November.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com. Follow New Hampshire Bulletin on and .

Monday鈥檚 vote sends the bill, which , to Gov. Glenn Youngkin for a signature. Youngkin listed the legislation as part of his 鈥渄ay one game plan鈥� and has made parental input into public curriculum a central part of his political platform. One of his campaign ads featured a Fairfax County mother who to remove Toni Morrison鈥檚 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel 鈥淏eloved鈥� from her son鈥檚 high school Advanced Placement English course.

The language of the bill, sponsored by Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant, R-Henrico, is to legislation that passed the General Assembly with bipartisan support in 2016. If signed into law, it would require the Virginia Department of Education to draft model policies on notifying parents of any sexually explicit materials assigned in class.

Parents would also be permitted to review the material and request alternative assignments. Every local school district would be required to adopt a policy consistent or more comprehensive with the statewide model. 

Once a bipartisan issue in Virginia, the push to give parents greater control over potentially controversial curriculum has become politically contentious since the gubernatorial race between Youngkin and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Youngkin criticized McAuliffe for vetoing the 2016 bill on the campaign trail while pledging to ban other 鈥渄ivisive concepts,鈥� including critical race theory, from public schools.

The idea of banning books has also sparked fierce local debate, both in Virginia and nationwide. Multiple school districts, including and , temporarily removed multiple texts from school library shelves after parents complained about explicit scenes. attracted national attention after banning the graphic novel 鈥淢aus鈥� 鈥� a visual retelling of the Holocaust from the perspective of the author鈥檚 father 鈥� from being taught in classrooms.

Dunnavant鈥檚 legislation wouldn鈥檛 apply to library books, but Democrats have argued the bill amounts to classroom censorship.

鈥淭he consequences of this bill are clear,鈥� said Del. Alfonso Lopez, D-Arlington, before Monday鈥檚 vote. 鈥淭eachers who are already overworked are not going to create two lesson plans. So what they鈥檙e not going to do is, they鈥檙e not going to teach the most controversial or dynamic or insightful ideas.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

The bill鈥檚 definition of 鈥渟exually explicit鈥� comes from a that limits what content state employees can access on government-provided computers. Republicans have consistently argued the legislation gives parents a reasonable level of control over what their children are exposed to in school.

鈥淭o steal Del. Kilgore鈥檚 phrase, let鈥檚 all calm down for a minute,鈥� Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Chesterfield, responded.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not an overly broad definition,鈥� she added. 鈥淚t鈥檚 something we don鈥檛 let adults in the Commonwealth access if they鈥檙e state employees.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Robert Zullo for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on and .

As analysts dissect the data from a political race they may try to lump all parental choice supporters into the same messaging box. To be clear, we are not one monolithic voting bloc who disagrees with a fair accounting of our country鈥檚 history being taught to our children. We do want our children to learn about slavery and the ongoing effects of racism.

There are people out here who believe the school environment that is best for their child is one in which Toni Morrison novels are not part of the curriculum. And that鈥檚 fine. They can have their choice, just like we can have ours. However, my plea to my friends in the education reform movement is do not allow a highly respected, well-regarded, and, in many ways, revered author in the Black community to be demonized as a political hot potato.

I implore those of us in the parent choice community to make it abundantly clear that we stand for parents having the right to choose and educators having the power to create curriculums that tell the truth in ways that will empower our children to be braver than we were, poised and prepared to take on the future because they have learned about their ancestors鈥� past.

This year鈥檚 political campaigns would have you believe that parent choice advocates side with one political party over the other, simply because our interests converge over public charter schools. That is simply not true. Let鈥檚 not let politicians twist our advocacy to best fit their needs.

As a Black parent and leader of the Freedom Coalition for Charter Schools, it is very clear to me that education choice is a winning political platform and sound policy. Our coalition is an organization that currently has 250 organizational members across 21 states that collectively serve more than 1 million Black and Brown families. We believe in parents having the freedom to choose the best schools for their children, regardless of their income or zip code. We fight for these liberatory freedoms every day. 

We cannot allow parent choice to be muddied by the voices out there arguing against CRT, especially considering they are at best unaware that it is an academic theory that is being discussed in graduate schools and at worst, using this as a proxy argument against children learning about the honest history of our country.

I am one who believes that children will be better citizens if they learn both the dark and beautiful facts that make America the promising country that it is.

RaShaun Kemp is the executive director of the Freedom Coalition for Charter Schools, which promotes public charter schools and chartering to advance and protect the right of self-determination for Black and brown people.