Back to
News & Commentary
ACLU Back-to-School Bookshelf: Our Reading List to Build a More Perfect Union
In our series, ACLU staffers share books that have helped them better understand civil liberties and civil rights, fight for our communities and our Constitution, and increase engagement in creating a more perfect union.
In our series, ACLU staffers share books that have helped them better understand civil liberties and civil rights, fight for our communities and our Constitution, and increase engagement in creating a more perfect union.
For nearly a century, the ACLU has defended the freedom to read—and to think—for every American. As the new school year begins, we’ve curated a list of books that do more than inform; they challenge us to build a more equitable future. Our selection spans social justice, history, contemporary analysis, and personal narratives, including frequently banned titles with newfound relevance.
Since 2021, thousands of book titles have been challenged or removed from school libraries, often targeting BIPOC authors, LGBTQ+ creators, and other marginalized voices. These efforts to ban books and restrict discussions—especially on race, gender, sexuality, and systemic injustice—are both unlawful and a serious threat to our right to learn.
The ACLU and our partners are fighting back. We’re challenging censorship in military schools, and in classrooms across the country. We’re also supporting legislative solutions like the Fight Book Bans Act, which would provide funding to school districts defending against censorship attempts and reaffirm that banning books is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Our series, “ACLU Bookshelf,” lets you join our fight and pick up the texts, novels, nonfiction stories, essays and more that help us form a more perfect union — one page at a time.
So you want to read...
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Court CaseDec 2025
Free Speech
Foia Request For Dhs Records On Practices Regarding Persons Who Record Immigration Or Law Enforcement Activity And/or Publish Information. Explore Case.FOIA Request for DHS Records on Practices Regarding Persons Who Record Immigration or Law Enforcement Activity and/or Publish Information
-
Press ReleaseDec 2025
Free Speech
Scotus Should Protect Organizations From State Subpoenas That Chill Free Speech, Aclu Argues. Explore Press Release.SCOTUS Should Protect Organizations from State Subpoenas That Chill Free Speech, ACLU Argues
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin about when organizations can ask federal courts to review state investigatory subpoenas that they claim chill their First Amendment rights. In September, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey joined an amicus brief authored by the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression (FIRE) in support of the right to seek federal relief. “Even before they’re enforced, law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to scare away supporters essential to any nonprofit’s work,” said Brian Hauss, deputy project director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “At a time when government officials throughout the country abuse regulatory powers to punish their ideological opponents, federal courts must remain a venue in which people can vindicate their First Amendment rights.” In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Platkin issued subpoenas under the state’s consumer protections laws to First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a nonprofit that runs anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, seeking wide-ranging information including the identity of donors. First Choice challenged the subpoenas in federal court, arguing that the information sought chilled its First Amendments rights to speech and association. The Third Circuit dismissed First Choice’s claims, saying it could not assert its First Amendment rights in federal court until the state enforced the subpoena in state court. “While the ACLU of New Jersey advocates for different policy outcomes than the plaintiff in this case, we are on the same page that investigatory subpoenas seeking sensitive information put all advocacy at risk,” said Jeanne LoCicero, legal director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “Federal court should remain open to anyone who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated, regardless of viewpoint.” The FIRE/ACLU brief argues that law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to chill protected speech and association, even before they are enforced. To ensure that these investigatory tools are not abused to retaliate against the ideological opponents of those in office, federal courts must promptly review claims that law enforcement subpoenas violate the First Amendment. The amicus brief was filed in August. It can be read here. This matter is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2025
Free Speech
Aclu Urges Supreme Court To Protect Free Expression Online In Copyright Case. Explore Press Release.ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Protect Free Expression Online in Copyright Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Cox v. Sony, a landmark copyright case. An amicus brief by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center for Democracy and Technology, working with leading copyright scholars and attorneys, urges the court to limit copyright penalties imposed on internet service providers (ISPs) for alleged user behavior. The Court is reviewing a decision by the Fourth Circuit that would force ISPs to shut off Internet access for any IP address based on a copyright holder’s mere accusation that it has been used to infringe a copyright. In practice, this could shut off Internet access for entire families, businesses, hotels, airports, and libraries because of the alleged actions of one user. This kind of collective punishment has troubling implications for online speech. “This case is bigger than one company paying penalties to another,” said Evelyn Danforth-Scott, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “This is about incentivizing service providers to shut off internet access first and ask questions later. In our increasingly connected and digital world, where we use the Internet to speak, listen, research, and create, that threatens all of our First Amendment rights.” “First Amendment interests are especially at risk when secondary liability is applied to an Internet service provider like Cox because of how they operate,” said Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Since the Internet service provider can’t remove individual pieces of copyright infringing material moving through their system, they're forced to terminate entire accounts, blocking anyone using that IP address from using the Internet. The Court should limit the scope of contributory copyright liability to make sure Americans aren’t unjustifiably blocked from getting online." The brief urges the Court to adopt the same contributory liability rules that apply in other contexts to preserve the free speech rights of distributors of speech. In Smith v. California, for example, the Court determined that imposing criminal liability on a bookstore for selling obscene books would incentivize them to stringently self-censor, stripping the shelves bare to avoid any potential fines or punishment. A similar theory is at play in Cox Communications v. Sony Music, where ISPs may be incentivized to bar users from the Internet based merely on an unproved accusation of illegal activity. Several record companies and music publishers, including Sony Music Entertainment, sued Cox Communications, an Internet service provider, in 2018 for not kicking users off their services for allegedly using music pirating services like BitTorrent. A jury awarded the plaintiffs a billion dollars in damages, and in 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part: It held that Cox Communications was liable for contributory copyright infringement because it hadn’t taken enough steps to disconnect users who were allegedly downloading pirated works. Cox is asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision. Oral arguments in Cox v. Sony take place today. The brief, filed in September by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center for Democracy and Technology, represented by co-counsel Lex Lumina LLP, Professors Rebecca Tushnet, Mark Lemley, and Chris Springman, can be viewed here. This case is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. -
News & CommentaryNov 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Immigration Agents Are Retaliating Against People Who Record Them. Explore News & Commentary.Immigration Agents are Retaliating Against People Who Record Them
We’re filing a FOIA to find out how deep the problem goes