SRES-920-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5175-5176)
Sponsored by Brian Schatz (D-HI)
What it does
This non-binding Senate resolution would express the Senate's support for designating October 4-10, 2026 as "Banned Books Week" and its concern about book banning and threats to freedom of expression. It would call on local governments and school districts to follow best-practice guidelines for book challenges and to protect students' ability to read a wide range of books. It would also call for repeal of executive orders and rescission of directives that set content-based and viewpoint-based limits on reading and learning in public schools and libraries. It would create no legal duty and change no law.
Who benefits
Authors, illustrators, and publishers whose titles are challenged or removed would gain public support from the Senate. Librarians and educators who describe a chilling effect in their work could gain a statement backing their position. Students and families who want broad access to school and library materials, and library and free-expression groups that observe Banned Books Week, would also gain visibility. The resolution would not itself change access to any book.
Who is hurt
No group would be directly burdened, since the resolution is non-binding. State legislators, school boards, and parents who support removing or restricting certain books may view it as criticism of their policies. Executive branch officials whose orders and directives it calls to be repealed may see it as a rebuke. Local officials may see its call to follow outside best-practice guidelines as pressure, even though it carries no enforcement.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the resolution restates First Amendment principles already recognized in Tinker (1969) and the Pico plurality (1982), which said schools may not remove library books on narrowly partisan or political grounds. They contend that the PEN America counts of thousands of removed titles and the federal book removals at military-affiliated schools and libraries show a pattern that merits a formal Senate statement. They argue that a non-binding resolution costs nothing and leaves local decisions to local officials while encouraging fair review procedures.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the resolution treats all removals as censorship, though many reflect parents' and local boards' judgments about what is age-appropriate in school settings, and Pico was only a plurality opinion that did not set a binding rule. They contend that the PEN America figures count challenged and restricted items together and rely on one advocacy group's definitions, and that the call to repeal executive orders is a partisan statement about the President's authority. They argue that school curriculum is a matter for states, districts, and parents, not the Senate.
Constitutional context
The resolution is non-binding and creates no legal obligations, so it does not itself raise a constitutional question. It refers to the First Amendment's free speech protections as applied to schools in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and to library book removals in Board of Education v. Pico (1982), a plurality decision that left the issue partly unsettled. Education policy is mainly a state and local power, and courts have not definitively resolved how far students' right to receive information limits school library removals, though that question is actively litigated in lower courts.
Checks and balances
The Senate would be using its expressive voice to criticize executive branch directives without gaining any new authority; the resolution has no force of law, and the President and state and local officials remain free to disregard it.
Historical precedent
Senate resolutions supporting Banned Books Week and expressing concern about book bans have been introduced in earlier Congresses, though none created binding law.