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
-
Press ReleaseJan 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech
Aclu And Aclu Of Minnesota React To The Trump Administration's Arrests Of Journalists Don Lemon And Georgia Fort. Explore Press Release.ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota React to the Trump Administration's Arrests of Journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort
WASHINGTON — Last night, the Trump administration arrested journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for reporting on federal agent activity and protests in Minneapolis. Their arrests and overnight detentions came after a federal magistrate judge declined to issue arrest warrants for them, and after Minnesota's chief federal district judge expressed strong skepticism about the charges’ validity. These arrests are the latest in a series of attacks by the Trump Administration on the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press. In recent months, the Trump administration has retaliated against journalists and bystanders for recording immigration enforcement activity, conducted a search of a Washington Post journalist’s home after reporting confidential information, punished the Associated Press for refusing to use the Administration’s preferred term for the Gulf of Mexico, and tried to prevent journalists from reporting on non-official information from the Pentagon. Esha Bhandari, Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, issued the following statement in response: “The federal government prosecuting journalists for their reporting is extremely concerning, made more so by its continued pursuit of these charges after a magistrate judge refused to sign-off on the arrest warrant and over the reported objections of career prosecutors. This will send a chilling message to other journalists reporting on the administration's actions, and should be understood in the context of the government’s broader crackdown on freedom of the press.” Deepinder Mayell, Executive Director of the ACLU of Minnesota, issued the following statement: “The Trump administration has abused the rights of Minnesotans for months. Arresting journalists should alarm everyone. These arrests are a bold escalation of the Trump administration’s quest to target a free press, avoid transparency and shape the truth. They are trying to send a message to journalists across the country that they could be next.” -
Washington, D.C.Jan 2026
Free Speech
The New York Times Co. V. Department Of Defense. Explore Case.The New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense
-
Press ReleaseJan 2026
Free Speech
Aclu To Federal Court: Pentagon Press Policy Threatens Core First Amendment Freedoms. Explore Press Release.ACLU to Federal Court: Pentagon Press Policy Threatens Core First Amendment Freedoms
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of the District of Columbia filed a brief late last night in support of the New York Times in its lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DoD) over its new press policy, which the brief describes as asserting the power “to banish journalists for disfavored coverage.” The ACLU warns that this unconstitutional policy must be understood as “part of a broader assault on free expression” that resembles authoritarian tactics seen in other countries that have experienced democratic backsliding. The New York Times was one of several major outlets to turn in their press access badges at the Pentagon in October in protest of the new rules from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The rules prohibit reporters from soliciting, receiving, or publishing information that is not authorized by DoD, even if the information is not classified. The Times filed suit several weeks later, alleging that the new policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. “Journalists are not mouthpieces for government propaganda, but that’s exactly what these new rules try to turn them into,” said Scott Michelman, legal director at the ACLU of D.C. “The First Amendment protects our right to a free press precisely because it can hold the government accountable to the people. We have seen time and time again throughout our nation's history that muzzling the press can have dire consequences. This administration’s relentless pursuit of ideological conformity through its repeated attacks on the press ignores the lessons of our history and the commands of our Constitution.” Echoing arguments made in an amicus brief filed in support of an Associated Press lawsuit against the Trump administration in October 2025, the brief argues that unchecked incursions on press freedoms frequently lead to greater repression, as demonstrated by American history and the modern experience of other nations. The brief catalogues the Trump administration’s alarming campaign of retaliation against dissenting voices, as well as its documented campaign against journalists. “Restrictions on press freedom are the canary in the coal mine for democratic backsliding,” said Brian Hauss, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “As the White House thumbs its nose at the First Amendment, it’s instructive to look to countries like Hungary and Russia, where the descent into autocracy began with crackdowns on journalists. We hope the court rebukes the Pentagon’s effort to coerce reporters providing critical information to the American people.” The New York Times’ suit, The New York Times Company v. Department of Defense, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in December 2025. The ACLU and the ACLU of D.C. filed the amicus brief with the court in support of the Times’ motion for summary judgment. The amicus brief can be viewed here. -
Press ReleaseJan 2026
Free Speech
Appeals Court In Mahmoud Khalil’s Case Decides Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction Until Immigration Court Proceedings Complete. Explore Press Release.Appeals Court in Mahmoud Khalil’s Case Decides Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction Until Immigration Court Proceedings Complete
PHILADELPHIA — Today, in a split 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court ruling that found Mahmoud Khalil’s detention and removal likely unconstitutional. Today's order does not weigh in on the core First Amendment arguments in his case but holds that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Khalil’s immigration proceedings. The opinion does not go into effect immediately and the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Mr. Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which will not happen while he has the opportunity to seek immediate review. Mr. Khalil’s legal team has several legal avenues they may pursue, including seeking review en banc from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which would allow all judges from the Third Circuit to weigh in. “Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.” In June 2025, a federal judge district court judge Michael E. Farbiarz granted Mr. Khalil’s request for a preliminary injunction after concluding that he would continue to suffer irreparable harm if the government continued efforts to detain and deport him on the basis of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s determination under the “foreign policy ground,” a rarely used deportation provision of the federal immigration statute, that Mr. Khali’s lawful protected speech would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Judge Farbiarz also found that Mr. Khalil was likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional challenge to his detention and attempted deportation on the “foreign policy ground.” In a separate order, Judge Farbiarz released Mr. Khalil on bail after determining that he presented neither a danger nor a flight risk and that extraordinary circumstances justified his temporary release while his habeas case proceeded. “Today’s decision is deeply disappointing, and by not deciding or addressing the First Amendment violations at the core of this case, it undermines the role federal courts must play in preventing flagrant constitutional violations,” said Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting Mahmoud Khalil, detaining him thousands of miles from home, and retaliating against him for his speech. Dissent is not grounds for detention or deportation, and we will continue to pursue all legal options to ensure Mahmoud's rights are vindicated.” The Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1300 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him away from his then eight-months pregnant wife and legal counsel. During the 104 days he remained in ICE custody, Mr. Khalil missed the birth of his first child, among other important moments. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, and the ACLU of Louisiana. The order and dissent can be read here.