Organizations and figures from across several segments of the book industry have once again banded together to strike back against one of the many book banning laws proposed or enacted over the past several years, this time in Idaho. The state’s HB 710, enacted last July 1, forbids anyone under 18 from accessing library books that contain “sexual content,” regardless of the work's literary or educational merit.
The suit, which challenges the book removal provisions of the law, was filed by all of the Big Five—Penguin Random House, along with Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster—as well as Sourcebooks. Coplaintiffs on the suit include the Authors Guild; authors Malinda Lo, David Levithan, and Dashka Slater; the Donnelly Public Library District; and a teacher, two students, and two parents. In the complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the plaintiffs are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions barring HB 710's enforcement, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.
At the heart of the challenge is HB710’s definition of sexual content, which PRH, in a release, characterized as “exceptionally broad, vague, and overtly discriminatory.” The law makes no distinction between infants and 17-year-olds, plaintiffs argued in announcing the lawsuit, leaving books to be classified as harmful regardless of the age and maturity level of the child. Books that are subject to the ban range from such classics as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale to bestsellers including Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin and Forever... by Judy Blume.
The law impacts nonfiction as well, “imperiling access to factual resources,” PRH stated in the release, “and erasing history by removing books about the Holocaust and other historical events.” Certain picture books could also be deemed “harmful for minors” and removed from shelves.
In their filing, the plaintiffs assert that the law requires libraries, at a minimum, to “take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to materials [deemed] harmful,” which “forces libraries either to sequester such materials to a fully monitored, cordoned-off, adults‑only section or to remove these materials from the library entirely.”
In addition to the vague definition of “sexual content,” the plaintiffs singled out the enforcement provisions of the law as troubling. They assert in the filing that the provisions not only allow county prosecuting attorneys and the state attorney general to bring claims against any school or public library, but incentivize private citizens to file legal complaints against public libraries or schools through a bounty system. The plaintiffs also contend that the legal threats have already had a chilling effect across the state, with libraries preemptively removing hundreds of books from their shelves.
In the case of one plaintiff, Donnelly Library has restricted access to its building for anyone under 18 unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. “Libraries should be for everyone," said Sherry Scheline, director of the Donnelly Public Library, in a statement. “As a result of HB 710, our programming—which includes the only option for after-school care in Donnelly—has been severely impacted, with children unable to step inside the building to use the bathroom or keep warm without a complex waiver. Our circulation has also declined significantly.”
Dan Novack, VP and associate general counsel at PRH, stressed that HB 710 goes further than previous laws by removing classic books from public libraries in addition to schools. Novack added that "book bans are real and their damage is profound." Late last week, the Trump administration's Department of Education called book bans "a hoax," eliminated the position of book ban coordinator at the Office of Civil Rights, and dismissed 11 outstanding civil rights complaints filed with the DOE.
"HB 710 has resulted in the removal of classic works of literature from library shelves across Idaho as libraries attempt to protect themselves from liability under the law's vague and overbroad provisions," said Michael Grygiel, an adjunct faculty member with Cornell Law School's First Amendment Clinic, one of the parties representing the plaintiffs. "This type of self-censorship is inimical to First Amendment liberties and has suffocated the right of Idaho students to read books deemed appropriate for their age and maturity level by their parents."
The suit is only the latest filed by publishers over book removal throughout the past several years, including challenges in Arkansas, Iowa, Texas, and multiple cases in Escambia County, Florida. Following the announcement of the lawsuit on February 4, PRH CEO Nihar Malaviya noted, in a memo to staff, that the suit was “the third historic lawsuit we’ve initiated against book banning in just over a year.”
Malaviya added: “Penguin Random House will unequivocally stand up for free expression and work to protect the right to read. These values go hand in hand with our ongoing goal of increasing the content we’re acquiring, publishing, and promoting by creators of all backgrounds and identities. Publishing books that reflect the world we live in is not only necessary for us to truly deliver on our mission to create books for everyone—it is the best way to position ourselves to continue to grow as a business, and the very foundation of who we are and what we do. ”
This story has been updated with further information.