The battle between social conservatives and Michigan libraries to remove certain books from the shelves is becoming increasingly political as the November elections draw near.

A Michigan Library Association poll shows more than three-quarters of Michiganders oppose censorship of library books but the public filed 47 complaints in 2023.

Debbie Mikula, executive director of the association, said in most cases, such bans would violate the First Amendment.

"When there's an effort to try to prohibit accessing information or a book because some individuals don't like the ideas contained in the book, the United States Supreme Court has held that's unconstitutional," Mikula pointed out.

One recent incident involved the Alpena County Library, where county commissioners removed the entire library board for "failing to act" on community members' demands to remove certain books. The community members vowed, but failed, to vote down the library's "millage" or operating fund.

A 2023 Michigan Library Association poll showed 71% of Michiganders have a positive opinion of the state's libraries. Two-thirds said books about sex, gender identity or sexual orientation should not be banned, while 30% said it is appropriate "sometimes" or "always."

Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, said many wanting books removed are influenced by groups like Moms for Liberty or others who circulate book lists and demand their removal.

"Most of the books that they want to have removed usually deal with LGBTQ characters or situations," Kaplan noted. "Some of the book deal with racism. But for the most part, they're usually, it's usually LGBTQ subject matter."

Kaplan argued removing a book not meeting a library's published standards is possible but only when everything is done out in the open.

"As long as there's a very transparent process where a book is reviewed and is determined that this book is inappropriate for the library, that's one thing," Kaplan stressed. "But the idea when you try to remove a book because you don't like the ideas contained in the book, that raises constitutional issues."


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday released an opinion that allows Tennessee to keep in place a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

While seen as a setback for trans youth, a legal challenge in North Dakota is still active. The North Dakota case, which seeks to overturn a 2023 ban adopted by the Legislature, is moving through the state-level courts.

Brittany Stewart, senior staff attorney with the legal nonprofit Gender Justice, said proceedings in the bench trial are winding down. She said parents of transgender youth in this region might think the Supreme Court outcome permanently cuts off similar cases, but stresses they shouldn't jump to conclusions.

"I would like to tell people, especially folks who are parents of kids who might be suffering from gender dysphoria, not to give up hope," she stressed. "This is just one case, on one specific issue."

The Tennessee case focused solely on the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause, and Stewart said the North Dakota case has other legal aspects to it. Republicans behind such bans argue they're trying to protect children, noting young people aren't mature enough for these decisions. But ban opponents say parents and doctors are deeply involved in discussing the lengthy process, and that gender-affirming surgery is rare for minors.

Stewart said the second main argument in her plaintiff's case is whether North Dakota's ban violates the right to personal autonomy. She added it's important to remember that the questions posed in this lawsuit have to do with the state constitution.

"The North Dakota Supreme Court has also said that the North Dakota Constitution isn't necessarily interpreted exactly the same as the U.S. Constitution," she continued.

She said if the judge rules in their favor, it's likely the state would appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. But there are questions about whether it would reach the U.S. Supreme Court because of the legal differences.

Analysts say the federal decision is still a big win for ban supporters in the nearly two dozen states that have them. But Stewart said the high court left an opening for future consideration if opponents can effectively prove such laws cause harm.


get more stories like this via email

Today is LGBTQIA+ Equal Pay Awareness Day and California advocates are speaking out against federal attacks on workplace protections.

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order recognizing "male" and "female" as the only two sexes and withdrawing Biden-era guidance on harassment in the workplace.

Deborah Vagins, national campaign director for Equal Rights Advocates and director of the Equal Pay Today campaign, said Department of Government Efficiency cuts have devastated agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and the National Labor Relations Board.

"President Trump took the unprecedented action to fire officials at these independent agencies," Vagins pointed out. "He's laid off hundreds of staff; he's effectively undermined enforcement protections, especially, for LGBTQIA employees."

The administration has said the cuts are necessary to fund an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts. A 2021 study from the Human Rights Campaign found LGBTQ+ workers make about 90 cents for every dollar earned by other workers, with LGBTQ+ women earning only 87 cents.

Vagins argued the new administration is sending the wrong signals so far.

"The recently renominated acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has made it clear that she does not plan to fully enforce employment protections for transgender and nonbinary workers," Vagins noted. "They had cases pending at the EEOC that have since been dropped."

Zakiya Thomas, president of the ERA Coalition, emphasized the Equal Rights Amendment has now been ratified by 38 state legislatures, so it should be added to the Constitution but the Trump administration has blocked it.

"The Supreme Court has actually upheld that discrimination against LGBTQ individuals is sex-based discrimination," Thomas stressed. "The Equal Rights Amendment is for everyone and so we want to make sure that we can use it to protect everyone against any kind of discrimination on the basis of sex."

June is Pride Month, and Washington's Lavender Rights Project is celebrating with a Black Trans Comedy Showcase. This is the largest fundraiser of the year for the nonprofit, which provides legal and social services for Black trans people.

Angel Patterson, director of development for Lavender Rights, said in the wake of increased attacks on trans rights across the country, the showcase prioritizes the community's health, safety, and joy.

"We are your family too," Patterson explained. "We are your mothers, your brothers, your sisters, your aunties, uncles, cousins, friends, bosses, coworkers. We're all paying parking tickets and taxes the same as everyone else."

Patterson said the showcase will be on June 14th in Seattle and will feature performers from Washington and across the country, including T.S. Madison and Mx Dahlia Belle.

So far, 923 bills targeting trans rights have been introduced across the country this year, and over 100 have passed. Patterson explains that the idea for the showcase came after hearing trans people used as punchlines for jokes in the media.

"Instead of a traditional protest we wanted to reclaim our power in another way that felt sacred to us and this event is truly that and it's a wonderful night to bring our folks together and highlight our work and really just feel the power of pride," Patterson continued.

The comedy showcase will also have auction items to help raise money for the project such as plane tickets, glass blowing classes, concert and sports tickets.