First Amendment litigation involving book censorship in schools has usually turned on the rights of a school board to control classroom curricula by prohibiting the use of certain texts, and an inquiry into whether a certain challenged text is vulgar. Some federal courts have distinguished between objective vulgarity—which a school board may prohibit—and the subject matter of a book (witchcraft, lesbian romance) with which the school board members may personally disagree or have a distaste for—and which a school board may not prohibit.

But one federal court recently stated that book banning takes place when a government or its officials forbid or prohibit others from having a book. The term does not apply where a school district—through its authorized school board—decides not to continue possessing the book on its own library shelves. The school board is the entity that has the ultimate authority to decide what books will be purchased and kept on the shelves of the schools in the district—and the school board can decide not to purchase and shelve a book in the first place.

In Massachusetts, as in other states, First Amendment litigation related to book censorship in schools often revolves around the balance between a school board's authority to determine educational content and the protection of free speech. Federal courts have generally held that while school boards can regulate the use of texts based on objective vulgarity, they cannot prohibit books solely because they disagree with the subject matter, such as themes of witchcraft or LGBTQ+ relationships. However, a recent federal court ruling clarified that a school board's decision not to purchase or to remove a book from its library does not constitute 'book banning' in the traditional sense. Instead, it is within the school board's discretion to decide which books to acquire or retain in the school's library. This distinction is important as it underscores the school board's role in curating educational materials and resources, while also highlighting the legal nuances of First Amendment challenges in the educational context.