In a landmark decision this week, a federal judge ordered the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) to return hundreds of previously banned books to military base school libraries, restoring access to works on racism, gender, and other pivotal social issues. The ruling, which came down on Monday, October 20, 2025, is the result of a closely watched lawsuit brought by students and families from military communities in Virginia, Kentucky, Japan, and Italy, who argued that their First Amendment rights had been violated by the sweeping removals.
The controversy began in the wake of executive orders signed during President Donald Trump’s second term, which sought to prohibit federal agencies and military schools from promoting or advancing what the administration labeled as divisive theories, including those related to racism, sexism, and gender ideology. In response, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth initiated a series of directives that led to the removal of nearly 600 books from DoDEA school libraries and the elimination of substantial curricular content on topics like sexuality, reproductive health, and cultural history.
According to CN, the removed books included titles such as “All Bodies are Wonderful” by Beth Cox, “I Am an Antiracist Superhero!” by Jennifer Nicole Bacon, and “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” by Michelle Alexander. Curricular chapters on the human reproductive system, menstruation, fetal development, abuse, puberty, and more were also stripped from health education courses. Even celebrations and school events tied to Black History Month, Women’s History Month, and Pride Month were barred from receiving official support, as outlined in internal DoDEA guidance documents.
For the twelve students who filed suit—with the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kentucky and Virginia—the stakes were deeply personal. One student was denied the chance to present a research project on Maya Angelou after Black History Month events were canceled. Another was unable to check out classic novels like “A Handmaid’s Tale” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four” after their removal. As the judge noted in her ruling, “It is glaring to this court that an adult scolding a middle schooler for her choice of books would be especially ‘chilling’ and injurious to the student’s First Amendment rights.”
The case, heard by U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles in the Eastern District of Virginia, centered on whether the government’s actions amounted to unconstitutional censorship. The government argued that the curation of school libraries was a form of government speech, and thus exempt from First Amendment protections. But Judge Giles was unpersuaded, writing, “Defendants attempt to circumvent the First Amendment entirely by asserting that the removal of books from DoDEA libraries constitutes government speech. The Court is unpersuaded.” She further observed, “It’s doubtful that either the public or students perceive the books in school libraries as conveying a government message.”
Drawing on key Supreme Court precedents, including Board of Education v. Pico and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, Judge Giles found that the removals were not justified by legitimate educational interests. “Surely, if defendants were concerned with pedagogical interests through book removals, they would be able to tender evidence of the age-level perspective they consider and detailed information on the specific pedagogical standards at issue,” she wrote. Instead, she concluded, “The record is clear that by removing books, Defendants intended to deny Plaintiffs access to ideas that they, by virtue of the Presidential EOs, found distasteful, ‘radical’ or ‘divisive,’ and not by the educational qualities of the books.”
The judge’s order grants injunctive relief, compelling DoDEA to restock the removed books and reinstate curricular content at the five schools attended by the plaintiffs—a significant, if geographically limited, victory. In total, DoDEA oversees 161 schools worldwide, but the ruling’s reasoning could have ripple effects far beyond the initial group of affected students. As The Lantern reported, the decision also blocks the Secretary of Defense and the DoDEA director from further removing books in efforts to implement the Trump-era executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Reaction from advocates was swift and celebratory. Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, called the decision “an important victory for students in DoDEA schools and anyone who values full libraries and vibrant classrooms.” Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Virginia, added, “By quarantining library books and whitewashing curricula in its civilian schools, the Department of Defense Education Activity violated students’ First Amendment rights. Today’s ruling affirms that the government can’t scrub references to race and gender from public school libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn’t like certain viewpoints on those topics.”
Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky, echoed this sentiment, stating, “Removing books from school libraries just because this administration doesn’t like the content is censorship, plain and simple. The materials removed are clearly age-appropriate and are only offensive to those who are afraid of a free-thinking population.”
Judge Giles also took the government to task for its lack of transparency during the litigation. Plaintiffs were repeatedly denied access to the full list of removed books, forcing them to collect evidence independently. “It is impermissible for defendants to take an action implicating constitutional rights, fail to provide information on that action, and then accuse the parties of lacking precise information for standing in their claims challenging that action,” she wrote.
The Department of Defense and DoDEA have not commented publicly on the ruling as of October 21, 2025, leaving open questions about whether the agency will appeal or how quickly the books will be returned to shelves. The case has already attracted national attention, with many observers seeing it as a bellwether for broader debates over academic freedom, parental rights, and the role of government in shaping public education.
The ruling also highlights the unique position of military families, whose children often rely on federally run schools while moving between bases in the U.S. and abroad. For these families, access to diverse educational materials can be a lifeline—one that was nearly severed by the recent wave of book removals and curricular restrictions.
As the dust settles, the message from the court is clear: the First Amendment protects not just the right to speak, but the right to learn. And for now, at least in five military base schools, the shelves will be fuller—and the minds of students, perhaps, a bit freer to explore the world’s ideas.
