Challenged Resources: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights

Libraries: An American Value states, “We protect the rights of individuals to express their opinions about library resources and services.”1 The American Library Association (ALA) maintains that every library should have a written policy and procedure for review of challenged resources. These should cover:

  • library materials;
  • library provided resources;
  • library initiated programs; and
  • library services.

A person’s right to freedom of expression is protected by the US Constitution. This right also applies to students and minors.2 Freedom of expression includes the right to share and access content, even if some people may find it objectionable. It also includes the right to object to content and have those concerns considered and addressed by governing entities, like library boards. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires a careful process to review all challenged expression before it can be suppressed.3

Libraries should have procedures to review concerns and challenges raised by groups or individuals. These procedures should be open, transparent, and comply with all applicable open-meeting and public-records laws. They should not be used to suppress constitutionally protected expression. Library policies should:

  • protect the rights of library users;
  • follow applicable laws; and
  • align with the guidance of the Library Bill of Rights, and Freedom to Read and Freedom to View Statements.

A review procedure is used to decide if a resource aligns with the library’s mission and policies. Resources that meet these standards should not be removed. During the review process, resources must stay available to users. Access should not be restricted, even for a short time.

To protect free expression, libraries must carefully evaluate any effort to control or restrict resources. These efforts can take many forms, such as:

  • Updating a collection development policy based on a new law or legal advice, even if the law may later be ruled unconstitutional.
  • A library cataloger placing a juvenile book in the adult collection out of fear of complaints about the content.
  • A school board member implying that a library worker’s job depends on them removing a specific item.
  • A mayor claiming the authority to decide what the library collects, ignoring the library’s collection development policy.
  • A state legislature passes a bill tying funding to removal of specific library materials.

Some of these actions may have legal ramifications for the library or for library staff. Legal counsel should be consulted to determine the legality or illegality of the action and how to proceed.

Libraries and library workers should be proactive in resisting efforts to restrict access that do not follow the legally required process, library policies, and ethical guidelines.

Notes

1. Libraries: An American Value, adopted February 3, 1999, by the ALA Council.

2. “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” adopted June 30, 1972, by the ALA Council; amended July 1, 1981; July 3, 1991; June 30, 2004; July 2, 2008, under the previous name “Free Access to Libraries for Minors”; July 1, 2014; June 25, 2019; and May 29, 2025.

3. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).

Adopted June 25, 1971, by the ALA Council; amended July 1, 1981; January 10, 1990; January 28, 2009; July 1, 2014; January 29, 2019; and May 29, 2025.