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 ReleaseApr 2026
Free Speech
Aclu Celebrates Scotus Decision Protecting Organizations From Speech-chilling State Subpoenas. Explore Press Release.ACLU Celebrates SCOTUS Decision Protecting Organizations from Speech-Chilling State Subpoenas
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Supreme Court decided in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport that nonprofits can seek immediate federal court review of state investigatory subpoenas that they claim chill their First Amendment rights. The decision cites an August amicus brief authored by the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression (FIRE) and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey that argues in support of groups’ right to seek federal relief. “We’re grateful that the Court has recognized that even before they’re enforced, law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information can scare away the supporters that are 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. The subpoenas sought wide-ranging information about the nonprofit, including the identity of its 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. “Thankfully, the Court ruled that federal courts remain open for nonprofits to challenge government subpoenas that could be used to target them based on their viewpoint,” said Jeanne LoCicero, legal director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “It is crucial for advocacy organizations – wherever they fall on the political spectrum - to have a legal path to fight retaliatory conduct by government officials.” The FIRE/ACLU brief argued that state law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to chill protected speech and association even before they are enforced in state court. To ensure that these investigatory tools are not abused to retaliate against the ideological opponents of those in office, federal courts must be available to 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 ReleaseApr 2026
Free Speech
After Earning Ph.d., Rümeysa Öztürk Chooses Her Next Chapter. Explore Press Release.After Earning Ph.D., Rümeysa Öztürk Chooses Her Next Chapter
BOSTON – Rümeysa Öztürk has returned to her home in Türkiye following the successful completion of her PhD program in child study and human development, with a focus on young people’s positive behaviors on social media, in February. A little over one year after ICE unlawfully detained Dr. Öztürk in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed in The Tufts Daily, the parties reached a settlement to resolve outstanding legal issues in federal court and to jointly move to dismiss her immigration proceedings. “After 13 years of dedicated study, I am very proud to have completed my Ph.D. and to return home on my own timeline,” said Dr. Rümeysa Öztürk. “The time stolen from me by the U.S. government belongs not just to me, but to the children and youth I have dedicated my life to advocating for. With them in mind, I am choosing to return home as planned to continue my career as a woman scholar without losing more time to the state-imposed violence and hostility I have experienced in the United States – all for nothing more than co-signing an op-ed advocating for Palestinian rights. “As I start the next chapter of my life, I stand firmly in solidarity with academic communities in the U.S. and elsewhere who live in fear for nothing more than their scholarship, and with other scholars punished for their courageous advocacy for Palestine,” Dr. Öztürk continued. “I invite all universities to do better about listening and valuing all of their students as equal community members, rather than favoring some and silencing others. And I invite everyone to recognize the privilege it is for any country to host international scholars, and the hole that is left in our society when that privilege is lost." An immigration judge terminated the removal proceedings against Dr. Öztürk earlier this year, finding that the government had no basis to deport her. The government appealed that decision soon after to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). This week, under the terms of the settlement agreement, the government and Dr. Öztürk jointly requested termination of proceedings in front of the BIA. "Rümeysa’s professional and academic accomplishments are impressive, impactful and inspiring, and her positive contributions to the field of child development will only continue to grow as she starts this next chapter,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The government’s arrest and detention of Rümeysa was unlawful and harmful, as numerous federal court decisions have confirmed that the government had no basis for its actions aside from her constitutionally protected speech. Yet even as the government continued a relentless campaign against Rümeysa for nothing more than co-authoring an op-ed, she continued to navigate her studies and her advocacy with strength and grace, and she succeeded in her goal of obtaining her Ph.D. to work towards bettering the lives of children.” In January, documents revealed as part of the AAUP v. Rubio trial made clear that the government targeted Dr. Öztürk for detention solely for her constitutionally protected speech. Internal government documents show that the government knew that they found no grounds to detain her, or seek to deport her, other than her co-authoring an op-ed in a student newspaper. “Rümeysa should never have been detained for expressing her opinions in a country that is supposed to protect freedom of speech,” said Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government’s retaliatory actions violated the Constitution, and having recourse to federal court was essential to secure her release and enable her to complete her Ph.D. We are grateful that she could make decisions about her future on her own terms.” Under the settlement agreement, Dr. Öztürk was free to return to Türkiye without further interference by the Department of Homeland Security. The government also expressly acknowledged that her SEVIS status has been reinstated and that she was in lawful status at all times that she was in the United States. “We are incredibly fortunate to have scholars like Rümeysa dedicate years of their life studying in this country, making our communities more vibrant and sharing their knowledge on our campuses” said Monica Allard, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Vermont. “Despite the Trump administration’s best efforts to baselessly attack her character and thwart her career, she successfully completed her studies earlier this year and has now returned home to Turkey. Dr. Öztürk will undoubtedly continue making a difference in the lives of children across the globe through her scholarship in child development and her advocacy for human rights.” Dr. Öztürk’s SEVIS case and habeas case will be dismissed as part of the settlement. A federal court in the District of Massachusetts had granted her a preliminary injunction in her SEVIS case, which the federal government had indicated it would appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Her habeas case was last argued in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision was pending. “Despite the administration’s best efforts to punish her for co-authoring an op-ed, Rümeysa successfully completed her Ph.D. program,” said Naz Ahmad, Acting Director of CLEAR. “No student or academic should be deprived of the opportunity to study or pursue research simply because the administration disagrees with their political views, as they attempted to do with Rümeysa. As she embarks on the next stage of her career, we’re excited to see what Rümeysa chooses to do.” Dr. Öztürk is represented in her federal court proceedings by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel LLP. For images from her graduation, please email media@aclu.org. For case materials, please see here. -
Press ReleaseApr 2026
Free Speech
Trump Administration's Board Of Immigration Appeals Denies Mahmoud Khalil’s Bid To Throw Out Deportation Case. Explore Press Release.Trump Administration's Board of Immigration Appeals Denies Mahmoud Khalil’s Bid to Throw Out Deportation Case
NEW YORK — After Mahmoud Khalil appealed an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) today issued a “final” administrative removal order in his case in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. The order does not change the status quo and will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Khalil still cannot lawfully be detained or deported while his separate, ongoing federal habeas corpus case continues in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. “I am not surprised by this decision from the biased and politically motivated Board of Immigration Appeals. I have committed no crime. I have broken no law. The only thing I am guilty of is speaking out against the genocide in Palestine — and this administration has weaponized the immigration system to punish me for it,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “My family is here. My life is here. I reject any attempt to intimidate me out of my home based on lies and ideological attacks. This is not justice. This is just another attempt to retaliate against me. I will continue fighting for my rights in court, and I will not be deterred — for me, my family, and all immigrants in this country who want to speak out against injustice.” The BIA, like all immigration courts, is controlled by the Executive Branch. Since taking office, the Trump administration has gutted the BIA, cutting it nearly in half and transforming it into a tool for accelerating deportations. Nearly all BIA decisions in recent months have resulted in a negative outcome for the noncitizens facing removal. The BIA’s decision in Mr. Khalil’s case was based on both of the government’s immigration charges against him, which Mr. Khalil has argued are unconstitutional retaliation against his speech. The first part of the BIA’s order relies on the so-called “Rubio determination” under the “foreign policy ground” of the Immigration and Nationality Act, despite the fact that a federal district court in New Jersey ruled it was likely an unconstitutional basis for Mr. Khalil’s deportation and enjoined it from being used as a basis for a removal order. The BIA also upheld a meritless second charge, added only after Mr. Khalil challenged the foreign policy ground. A tranche of internal government documents from the AAUP v. Rubio trial last year showed the government itself found no basis for the second charge before detaining him. “In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA's decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” said his lead immigration attorney Marc Van Der Hout. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.” The New Jersey district court’s orders prohibiting the government from re-detaining or deporting Mr. Khalil as his federal case proceeds remain in effect. In the Third Circuit, Mr. Khalil has asked the full appeals court to consider his case, after a split decision from a three-judge panel found that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition seeking his release. The Third Circuit’s panel decision has not taken effect and does not alter the district court’s injunction and bail order while his habeas appeals continue. “The only thing keeping the government from accomplishing its unconstitutional goals is the intervention of a federal district court last summer,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “Without the protection of a habeas court, the government could do this to anyone, which is why today’s decision is an important reminder of the stakes of Mahmoud’s habeas case. We will continue to use all legal levers available to protect our client and defend the First Amendment against this cruel and relentless campaign.” 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), and the ACLU of New Jersey. -
CaliforniaApr 2026
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
Amazon V. Perplexity. Explore Case.Amazon v. Perplexity