Two lawsuits filed in late March allege that St. Francis Area Schools violated Minnesota’s new anti-book ban law by adopting a policy that outsources library decisions to a third-party website linked to conservative advocacy groups.
Education Minnesota and the ACLU of Minnesota separately sued the district, arguing its policy unlawfully removes books challenging conservative beliefs, including works like “The Kite Runner,” “The Bluest Eye,” and “The Handmaid’s Tale.” At least 46 books have been removed or are slated for removal under the policy, which relies on ratings from BookLooks.org, a site founded by a member of Moms for Liberty, a group known for conservative ideology. The district’s November 2024 policy requires books rated three or higher on BookLooks’ five-point scale to be removed upon complaint, bypassing local educator input and leaving no avenue for appeal.
Kate Baxter-Kauf, an attorney counseling with the ACLU, emphasized the policy’s legal vulnerabilities. “This case is new in two ways. One is that the statute itself is new, and this seems to pretty clearly violate it. The second is the fact that there are these third-party organizations backed by right-wing groups like Moms for Liberty that try and come up with crowdsourced lists of books,” Baxter-Kauf said.
The school board ignored legal warnings against the policy, calling the decision “indefensible” and a violation of students’ First Amendment rights to information. The lawsuits, filed in the Anoka County District Court, seek to overturn the policy, which plaintiffs argue creates academic disadvantages for students in Advanced Placement courses that include banned titles. Education Minnesota’s lawsuit specifically cites violations of state law and the Minnesota Constitution guarantees against viewpoint discrimination.
Student protests erupted in March with over 100 St. Francis High School students staging a walkout and “read-in” to oppose the bans. Demonstrators carried copies of banned books and gathered outside the school’s main entrance, arguing that the policy stifles intellectual growth.
The district’s policy also drew criticism from free-speech advocates, including PEN America, which labeled it a “recipe for censorship” due to its reliance on ideologically driven ratings rather than professional librarian expertise.
The district has paused new bans since BookLooks.org shut down in April, but 11 books remain removed. School board leadership has not publicly defended the policy in recent meetings, though one community member voiced support for the restrictions during a public comment period, claiming the removed titles contain “inappropriate content.”
Minnesota’s anti-book ban law, which took effect in August 2024, prohibits public schools from removing materials based on partisan or ideological disapproval. The law explicitly requires districts to consider professional library standards and community input when evaluating books.
The St. Francis policy’s automatic removal process conflicts with these requirements according to the lawsuits. Furthermore, it is argued that the policy’s reliance on a single third-party website undermines Minnesota’s educational standards. “They’re outsourcing censorship to an organization with no accountability,” Baxter-Kauf said.
As the lawsuits progress, the case is scheduled for a motions hearing on July 9. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts interpret Minnesota’s new law, which is among the strongest anti-censorship statutes in the country. For now, students and advocates await a resolution to this case, which could take months. “This isn’t just about books—it’s about whether schools can erase perspectives they disagree with,” Baxter-Kauf said.
This piece was originally published in Zephyrus’ print edition on May 8, 2025
