Organisations and individuals from various sectors of the book industry have once again united to challenge a book banning law—this time in Idaho. HB 710, which took effect on July 1, prohibits individuals under 18 from accessing library books containing “sexual content,” irrespective of their literary or educational value.
A lawsuit contesting the law’s book removal provisions has been filed by the Big Five publishers—Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, and Simon & Schuster—along with Sourcebooks. Additional plaintiffs include the Authors Guild; authors Malinda Lo, David Levithan, and Dashka Slater; the Donnelly Public Library District; a teacher; two students; and two parents. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the suit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against HB 710’s enforcement, along with reimbursement for legal fees and associated costs.
Central to the challenge is the law’s definition of sexual content, which the plaintiffs argue is “exceptionally broad, vague, and overtly discriminatory.” The law applies to minors of all ages without distinction, forcing books to be categorized as harmful regardless of a child’s maturity level. Works affected by the ban include literary classics such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, as well as bestsellers like Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin and Forever… by Judy Blume.
Nonfiction titles are also impacted, with critics warning that the law could limit access to factual resources and erase history by restricting books on the Holocaust and other significant events. Even certain picture books may be deemed “harmful for minors” and subsequently removed from library shelves.
According to the lawsuit, HB 710 mandates that libraries take “reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to materials [deemed] harmful.” This requirement forces libraries to either sequester such materials in an adults-only section or remove them entirely.
Beyond its vague definition of sexual content, the lawsuit challenges the law’s enforcement mechanisms. Plaintiffs argue that the law permits county prosecutors and the state attorney general to take legal action against schools and public libraries while also incentivising private citizens to file complaints via a bounty system. They contend that the looming legal threats have already led to widespread self-censorship, with libraries across Idaho preemptively removing hundreds of books.
One plaintiff, Donnelly Public Library, has gone so far as to restrict access to its building for unaccompanied minors. “Libraries should be for everyone,” said Sherry Scheline, the library’s director. “HB 710 has severely impacted our programming, including the only after-school care option in Donnelly. Children can no longer enter the building to use the bathroom or stay warm without completing a complex waiver. Our circulation has dropped significantly.”
Dan Novack, Vice President and Associate General Counsel at PRH, emphasised that HB 710 extends beyond prior legislation by removing classic books from public libraries in addition to school collections. He warned that “book bans are real, and their damage is profound.” Late last week, the Trump administration’s Department of Education dismissed book bans as “a hoax,” eliminated the position of book ban coordinator at the Office of Civil Rights, and closed 11 outstanding civil rights complaints related to the issue.
Michael Grygiel, an adjunct faculty member at Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic—one of the legal teams representing the plaintiffs—highlighted the broader implications of HB 710. “This law has resulted in the removal of classic literature from Idaho libraries as institutions seek to protect themselves from liability under its vague and overbroad provisions,” he stated. “This kind of self-censorship undermines First Amendment rights and restricts students’ ability to read books deemed appropriate by their parents.”
This lawsuit is just the latest in a series of legal challenges brought by publishers against book bans in states including Arkansas, Iowa, Texas, and Florida’s Escambia County. Following the lawsuit’s announcement on February 4, PRH CEO Nihar Malaviya noted in a staff memo that this marked the company’s third lawsuit against book banning within the past year.
“Penguin Random House will unwaveringly defend free expression and protect the right to read,” Malaviya stated. “These principles align with our ongoing commitment to publishing diverse voices and perspectives. Ensuring that our books reflect the world we live in is not only essential to our mission—it is fundamental to our growth as a business and to the very core of who we are.”
