American Booksellers for Free Expression Decries Statewide Censorship of LGBTQ+ Books in Alabama, Tennessee
By Philomena Polefrone - November 25, 2025

In the past week, American Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFE) has joined local and national advocates in demanding due process for LGBTQ+ books after recent actions by state government entities in Alabama and Tennessee, have targeted books including so-called “gender ideology” — a catchall term often used to target transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people.

Both letters, which explain what happened as well as our response, follow.

 

Alabama

 

For Immediate Release

Thurs, November 20, 2025

 

Alabama and National Library and LGBTQ+ Advocates Express Alarm Over State’s New Ban On Youth Access To Trans Books In Libraries

Anti-Trans Code Change Would Enact Unprecedented Censorship of Alabama Libraries

(Montgomery, AL) — Read Freely Alabama, Alabama Transgender Rights Action Coalition, PEN America, EveryLibrary, Authors Against Book Bans, National Coalition Against Censorship, American Booksellers for Free Expression, and PFLAG National have expressed alarm at the passing of an anti-trans, anti-free expression administrative code change by the Alabama Public Library Service (APLS).

The change to APLS Administrative Code, as written, mandates public libraries to relocate or fully remove “any materials regarding transgender procedures, gender ideology, or the concept of more than two biological genders” on the basis that they are "inappropriate" for children and teens. This broad language will likely result in any books with trans representation–regardless of their age-relevance–moved to adult sections of public libraries in Alabama.

The language in the code change does not define “gender ideology,” a vague, undefined term often used as an anti-LGBTQ+ dogwhistle. A public campaign in favor of the policy has been pushed by pro-censorship advocacy groups, including Moms For Liberty, Eagle Forum, and Clean Up Alabama, some of which have previously been involved in other anti-LGBTQ+ library censorship efforts in the state.

APLS Chairman Wahl, who also serves as the Alabama Republican Party Chairman, has claimed to “abhor the idea of using the power of government to ban a book or to ban free speech,” but the code does just that, violating youth patrons' First Amendment rights to access information and the rights of parents whose children’s access to information will be restricted. The policy steamrolls local decision-making processes on library collections by introducing additional state-mandated requirements on what books are available to certain library users. The APLS Board has also failed to account for the financial and labor burden on libraries who must reorganize their collections in order to accommodate this policy.

Read Freely Alabama’s Senior Leadership said, “The new ‘gender ideology’ amendment highlights the APLS Board’s continued pattern of disregard for the First Amendment and parental rights, and is a deliberate attempt to target Alabamians they do not think should exist in the public sphere. Read Freely Alabama remains committed to fighting this unconstitutional amendment.”

Alabama Transgender Rights Action Coalition said, “This code change ignores the lived realities of trans and gender-nonconforming youth, which is that mental and physical health outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth are higher when they have access to materials that validate them and significantly lower when their identities are rejected or suppressed. Anti-trans policies such as this are actively contributing to these negative outcomes, especially for youth–a direct contradiction of the purported goal to ‘protect’ children.”

Dr. Megan Madison, co-author of the First Conversations series, said, "This proposed amendment is a blatant violation of the human rights of transgender people and of all of our freedom to read. Every child deserves access to books that reflect their own lives and the lives of people who are different from them. Research shows that diverse books not only improve literacy outcomes, but help all children develop the skills they need to feel good about who they are and grow into caring community members who know how to treat everyone with respect and dignity.”

Susan Kuklin, author of Beyond Magenta: Trans and Nonbinary Teens Speak Out, said, “I wrote Beyond Magenta: Trans and Nonbinary Teens Speak Out when I learned that young people were being harassed, beaten, thrown out of their homes, and (some) even killed. I wondered who these young people were and what made their personal transition so threatening that a stranger would turn to such extreme violence. I thought it important for people to understand and be in an informed position to consider the complexity of gender identity. The participants in my book chose to go public about their feelings and choices for three reasons: to educate, to define themselves in their own terms, and to let others in their position know that they are not alone. Life and reality can be complicated. Teenagers understand this already. For them to become knowledgeable adults and citizens, all aspects of life and reality should be open to their inquiries. They can handle it.” 

EveryLibrary’s Executive Director John Chrastka said, “This is an extraordinary and unlawful intrusion by state officials into the constitutionally protected rights of readers. Its intent and effect are blatantly discriminatory, singling out transgender and broader LGBTQ+ identities for exclusion and signaling that those Alabamians are unworthy of recognition in their own public institutions. Public libraries exist to serve all readers without fear or favor. This rule betrays that basic purpose.”

Pastor Daniel Vanek of Tuscaloosa United Church of Christ said, "While the Apostle Paul warned against provoking children to anger or harm, he never advocated for hiding the reality of human diversity from them; true protection involves equipping children with understanding, not enforcing ignorance. Banning trans-affirming books is a response born of fear, whereas providing access to stories that reflect the full beautiful diversity of God’s creation is a faithful fulfillment of the command to love our neighbors by striving to understand them.”

PEN America’s Freedom to Read Senior Program Manager Sabrina Baêta said, “This code change is an attack on young people’s First Amendment rights. By adopting this code change, the APLS Board is demonstrating complete indifference to the very purpose of libraries: free inquiry. Young people, including trans youth, should have access to books that represent themselves and the world around them. Reclassifying books for young people to adult sections ultimately leaves young readers empty-handed without access to critical stories, histories, and representations.”

This code change builds on years of attacks on public libraries in the state. In 2024, an initial ideologically-motivated code change imposed further restrictions on what books minors can access in Alabama public libraries by mandating policies to “ensure library sections designated for minors under the age of 18 remain free of material containing obscenity, sexually explicit, or other material deemed inappropriate for children or youth.” The policy followed a 2023 letter from Governor Kay Ivey who directed APLS to address the issue, she claimed, of “exposure of children and youth to inappropriate, sexually suggestive materials” in Alabama libraries. Alabama has repeatedly seen anti-library legislation filed and numerous public libraries targeted for the content of books within their collections.

 

Tennessee

[PDF]

The Honorable Tre Haggart
Secretary of State of Tennessee
312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
Nashville, TN 37243

Subject: Letter of Concern Regarding Recent Directives to Tennessee Regional Libraries

We write to express our profound concern regarding the recent letters issued by your office to libraries in the Tennessee Regional Library System. Your demand for a full review of all materials for “age-appropriateness” within 60 days has created widespread confusion, fear, and operational disruption across the state’s public libraries. These types of reviews create immense administrative burdens for library systems and often lead to illegal censorship, which raises liability risks for local communities and the state.

Many libraries, uncertain about the legal and procedural basis for the mandate, have had to redirect limited resources, with some temporarily closing branches to complete these reviews, which are implied to be necessary for future funding. The demands in your letter need immediate clarification, as it is not reasonable to expect libraries to follow directives that would risk violating applicable law, including the U.S. Constitution.

Age-Appropriate Review Risks Book Removals That May Violate State and Federal Law.

It is illegal to remove books from public libraries because some people do not like them. This is a well-settled legal principle. Reviewing books for removal based on someone’s subjective opinion about their age-appropriateness threatens people’s First Amendment Rights. In 2025, federal courts across the country have re-affirmed this, holding that books cannot be pulled from library shelves based on vague, sweeping proclamations that impose a few people’s reading preferences on entire communities. Such behavior is censorship, and it is against the law. (See, e.g. Fayetteville v. Crawford County, Penguin Random House v. Gibson.)

Your letter does not refer to this well-established precedent. Instead, it references Executive Order 14168. Presidential Executive Orders are not legislation, and Congress has opted to not pursue such a bill. Executive Orders regulate federal agencies internally by directing those agencies to update their rules and policies. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the agency that runs library grant programs, has not created regulation or policies in support of the Executive Order. Moreover, multiple courts have already questioned the constitutionality of Executive Order 14168. Portions have been enjoined for violating First Amendment and equal protection principles (See e.g.., San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump; Schiff v. Office of Personnel Management). These rulings underscore that enforcement of the Order’s anti-DEI provisions constitutes viewpoint discrimination.

Tennessee’s libraries have been complying with the laws and regulations that do exist, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which requires programs like the Grants to States program to “support and expand library services” for communities of all backgrounds. Tennessee’s current five-year plan complies with the anti-discrimination provisions set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Age Appropriate Review Creates Unreasonable and Costly Administrative Burdens on Municipal and Library Systems

The Secretary’s letter creates an enormous administrative burden for ends that may ultimately be found unconstitutional. In this unsettled legal environment, requiring Tennessee’s public libraries to conduct exhaustive content reviews not only risks violating the law but also wastes taxpayer money on unnecessary processes that may soon be invalidated.

Public library collections contain hundreds of thousands of titles. Reviewing every title requires a huge amount of resources. When an Indiana public library adopted a similar “age appropriate” review process, it was estimated that the project could cost the county’s taxpayers $300,000. If reviews result in removing library materials, and those removals violate people’s constitutional rights, the costs of that liability are also high. For instance, litigation in a single county in Arkansas has racked up $575,000 in legal fees.

The Vital Mission of Tennessee’s Public Libraries

Tennessee’s public libraries are steadfast guardians of the right to read, serving every member of their communities without prejudice, censorship, or fear. Content reviews create an unnecessary expenditure for ends that are likely unconstitutional. Libraries must be guided by directives that respect free speech and constitutional values. Ultimately, the call is clear: the state should support—not hinder—the fundamental freedoms of expression and access to information for all, which define a library’s purpose.

We look forward to your prompt clarification so that librarians can return their full attention to their essential work: connecting Tennesseans to knowledge, culture, and one another.