St. Francis Area Schools sued by parents, ACLU over book ban controversy
Parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have filed separate lawsuits against St. Francis Area Schools, accusing the district of unlawfully banning numerous books based on the ideas, characters and stories they contain.
The lawsuit in Anoka County District Court filed on behalf of the parents of eight district students was followed up by the ACLU's lawsuit on Monday.
Students at St. Francis High School have also protested the book bans, staging a walkout from classes on Monday, with an estimated 100 students participating.
The union lawsuit filed by parents and Education Minnesota claims the 'District's policy is antithetical to the values of public education and encouraging discourse. Perhaps more importantly, the policy violates the Minnesota Constitution and state law."
It also requests for the judge to declare the policy illegal and reverse the ban on more than 40 books that have been removed or will be soon. Among those publishings include:
"The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison
"Beloved" by Toni Morrison
"The Kite Runner" by Khaled Hosseini
"Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut
"Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley
"The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood
A complaint has also been filed against the Holocaust memoir "Night" by Eli Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Per district policy, it will be removed from the shelves.
The book bans come in the wake of the school district adopting last fall to use ratings from the anonymous review site BookLooks in its library. BookLooks has generated headlines for its past links with conservative group Moms for Liberty.
The lawsuit alleges the BookLooks rating system discriminates "extensively based on viewpoint, particularly with regard to topics of gender, race, and religion.'
The BookLooks states on its website that it is not affiliated for Moms for Liberty, but that it communicates "with other individuals and groups with whom there is an intersection of mission and values."
The website is now shut down as of Sunday, with a post on the site saying it will be "ceasing operation and taking down all of our reports from the site." No book reviews are visible as of Tuesday.
"It has been quite the ride with many ups and downs since God called us to this work in 2022, but after much prayer and reflection it has become apparent that His work for us here is complete and that He has other callings for us," its statement reads.
It's unclear why the book review website is shutting down operations.
The lawsuit filed by the ACLU is on behalf of two other students in the district and says at least 46 books have been removed or are in the process of removal.
St. Francis Area Schools provided the following statement to Bring Me The News on Tuesday:
"St. Francis Area Schools can confirm the receipt of lawsuits from Education Minnesota and the American Civil Liberties Union-Minnesota in regards to our District Policy 606.5. The legal team is reviewing the documents from both lawsuits and working with the district on determining next steps. The district is committed to addressing the claims identified in the lawsuits thoroughly and appropriately."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Migrants flown to El Salvador under Alien Enemies Act must be allowed to challenge their removal, federal judge rules
A group of migrants the Trump administration sent to a mega-prison in El Salvador earlier this year must now have an opportunity to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. The ruling from US District Judge James Boasberg said that US officials had 'improperly' loaded the migrants on to flights in mid-March and sent them to El Salvador's CECOT prison without giving them a chance to challenge their designation as 'alien enemies' subject to President Donald Trump's use of the sweeping 18th century wartime law. As a result, Boasberg wrote, officials must find a way to 'facilitate' the migrants' 'ability to proceed through habeas and ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process.' The ruling came the same afternoon it was acknowledged that a migrant in a separate case hastily deported to Mexico was returned to the US by the Trump administration. Earlier this year the Supreme Court, without deciding whether Trump had properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act, said officials must give migrants targeted under it a chance to contest their removal through so-called habeas petitions. 'Absent this relief, the Government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action,' Boasberg wrote. Several hundred Venezuelan migrants were sent to CECOT in mid-March after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act. 'The court made clear that the Trump administration cannot decline to remedy blatant constitutional violations and leave these men in a foreign gulag, maybe incommunicado for the fear of their lives,' said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. Boasberg, the chief judge of the trial-level federal court in Washington, DC, was critical in his ruling of the administration's actions earlier this year, particularly given the fact that information that emerged after the flights occurred undermined the government's claims that the migrants were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so,' the judge wrote. He continued: 'Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' This story has been updated with additional developments.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iowa ACLU sends letters to cities calling for removal of drag restrictions
Students got signatures and pictures with drag queens who spoke at Iowa Safe Schools' Annual Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth April 28, 2023 at Prairie Meadows in Altoona. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa sent letters Wednesday to five Iowa city councils calling for a change to local statutes that classify 'female impersonators' and 'male impersonators' as adult entertainment, saying such measures are unconstitutional. The letters were sent to the city councils of Carroll, Harlan, Mt. Pleasant, Polk City and Webster City. The five Iowa municipalities have restrictions on performances — typically referring to drag shows — as adult entertainment. In the letters to the city councils, ACLU Staff Attorney Shefali Aurora wrote that the prohibitions on drag performances violate the state and U.S. constitutions, as they conflict with the First Amendment by restricting a form of expression that's protected under free speech rights. Aurora also argued the ordinances violate constitutional equal protection rights, as the measures target the LGBTQ community on the basis of sex and gender expression. Aurora said in a news conference Wednesday the ordinances are restricting performances that are neither obscene or sexual. 'Not all drag is obscenity,' Aurora said. 'A lot of drag performances are, in fact, family friendly. Too often, drag is equated with sexualized performances. But drag is not, by definition, adult entertainment. It can simply be someone wearing clothing and accessories conventionally worn by a person of a different gender.' Other performances that entail stories involving a person dressed in a manner that does not traditionally correspond with their gender at birth — such as movies like 'Mulan' or 'Mrs. Doubtfire' — could be restricted from being shown under such local ordinances. A statewide measure to ban minors' attendance at drag performances was discussed during the 2025 legislative session but ultimately did not advance. This proposed legislation contained similar language that defined drag as performances where the main aspect is 'a performer who exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth through the use of clothing, makeup, accessories, or other gender signifiers.' The bill, which was amended, received heavy criticism not just for limiting family-friendly drag shows but potentially impacting transgender people's ability to be in non-drag public performances and preventing local theaters from performing classic art such as Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night,' as it contains a character that dresses as the opposite gender. Aurora said this is not the first time the ACLU has sent letters to local governments about similar anti-drag ordinances. In the past, the organization has contacted Eagle Grove, Knoxville, Newton, Dyersville, Pella, Waukee and Grinnell — communities that agreed to amend their ordinances after receiving communications from the ACLU on the issue. In 2021, Doña Martha's Office in Eagle Grove had canceled a drag show after receiving a letter from the city attorney that called for the performances to cease, claiming they violated municipal code. Aurora said Eagle Grove later agreed to amend the restriction on 'female impersonators' as part of the city's definition of adult entertainment. While the ACLU is encouraging all cities to review their ordinances and remove language related to drag performances as inherently obscene, Aurora said the latest letters were sent as many Iowa communities are celebrating Pride month, holding events that sometimes host drag performances. 'We thought it was particularly important to raise this issue again this month, with it being Pride, which is why we're sending out the letters this week, just to bring that to the forefront,' Aurora said.
Boston Globe
9 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Nebraska is the latest state to ban transgender students from girls' sports
Sponsors agreed to drop the bathroom and locker room ban when one Republican — Omaha Sen. Merv Riepe — declared he would vote against it otherwise. Advertisement The measure was first introduced in 2023 by then-freshman Sen. Kathleen Kauth, but failed to advance as lawmakers angrily argued over Kauth's other bill that sought to bar gender-affirming care for transgender minors under the age of 19. An amended version that banned gender-affirming surgery — but not all gender-affirming care — for minors later passed and was enacted that year. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On Wednesday, Kauth promised to revive her bathroom and locker room ban next year, reiterating her rejection that people can determine their own gender. 'Men are men and women are women,' she said, and urged voters in Riepe's district to pressure him to support it. Republicans behind the sports ban say it protects women and girls and their ability to fairly compete in sports. Opponents say with so few transgender students seeking to participate in sports, the measure is a solution in search of a problem. Advertisement Fewer than 10 transgender students have participated in middle school and high school sports in the state over the past decade, according to the Nebraska School Activities Association. At least 24 other states have adopted similar bans. President Donald Trump also signed an executive order this year intended to dictate which sports competitions transgender athletes can enter and has battled in court with Maine over that state's allowing transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska denounced the measure. ACLU Nebraska Executive Director Mindy Rush Chipman said the ban 'slams the door shut' for some transgender students to fully participate in their school communities. 'This ban will only create problems, not solve any,' Rush Chipman said, adding that 'the constant targeting of LGBTQ+ Nebraskans must stop.'
