News Banned Books Week Most Banned Books of The Year List Includes Numerous Genre Titles and Authors Stephen King alone had 87 of his titles banned somewhere in the U.S. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on October 8, 2025 Image: Penguin Random House Comment 0 Share New Share Image: Penguin Random House It’s Banned Books Week, an event designed to highlight the value of free and open access to information and bring readers together in support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas. In the lead-up to the week, PEN America released their report about the most banned books from 2024-2025. Overall, there were 6,870 cases of book bans across 23 states and 87 public school districts. Those cases involved 3,752 titles, 2,308 authors, 243 illustrators, and 38 translators. Unsurprisingly, genre artists were sadly well-represented on the list, with Stephen King receiving the highest number of bans—87 of his titles are impacted, as well as nine districts banning him completely as an author—as well as Sarah J. Maas, who ties with Ellen Hopkins for having the highest number of total author bans (33). Below are the Top 10 Banned Books for 2025. The list includes several genre books, including lauded classics, one that has been adapted into a Broadway musical and two feature films, with the first making over $750 million worldwide, and one whose sequel just came out with a garlic-scented edition. 1. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (23 bans) 2. [TIED] Breathless by Jennifer Niven (20 bans) 3. [TIED] Sold by Patricia McCormick (20 bans) 4. Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo (19 bans) 5. A Court of Mist and Fury by Sarah J. Maas (18 bans) 6. [TIE] Crank by Ellen Hopkins (17 bans) 6. [TIE] Forever… by Judy Blume (17 bans) 6. [TIE] The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky (17 bans) 6. [TIE] Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire (17 bans) 10. [TIE] All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson (16 bans) 10. [TIE] A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas (16 bans) 10. [TIE] Damsel by Elana K. Arnold (16 bans) 10. [TIE] The DUFF: Designated Ugly Fat Friend by Kody Keplinger (16 bans) 10. [TIE] Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult (16 bans) 10. [TIE] Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout (16 bans) You can find the full list of banned titles from the most recent report right here. Check out one (or all) of them at your local bookstore! [end-mark] The post Most Banned Books of The Year List Includes Numerous Genre Titles and Authors appeared first on Reactor.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday about an Illinois law that allows ballots to be counted that arrive up to 14 days after Election Day.  The plaintiffs, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two presidential electors from the state, contend that federal law established Election Day and Illinois allows votes to come in two weeks longer than federal law allows, which would make such ballots effectively unlawful. Thus, unlawful ballots could cost Bost the election—or reduce his margin for victory.  The plaintiffs also argued the Bost campaign is further injured because it has to pay staff for an additional two weeks after the election.   Plaintiffs are represented by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.  Federal law 2 U.S. Code Section 7 states Election Day for federal offices is the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even-numbered years.  Illinois says mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Election Day but can arrive up to two weeks later.  A district court and a 2-1 majority of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined the plaintiffs in the case of Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections lacked standing to challenge the state law. In other words, the lower courts determined that the plaintiffs challenging the law actually weren’t harmed by it, so they couldn’t bring a suit.  The lawsuit was first filed on May 25, 2022.   The case should be an easy one for the Supreme Court, said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.  “The decision of the lower courts was absurd,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “If a federal candidate whose election is affected by a state election law does not have standing to sue over that state election law, then no one has standing.” The two Illinois presidential electors joining Bost in the case are Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney. If plaintiffs gain standing in this case, it would almost certainly pave the way for candidates to challenge state laws that allow ballots to arrive well after Election Day.  Rather than the merits of the law itself, the arguments before the Supreme Court concerned the issue of whether Bost and the electors had standing to bring the case in the first place.  But if the high court determines the lower courts improperly threw out the case based on standing, the lower courts will then have to rule on the merits of the ballot law.  The state of Illinois argued Wednesday that Bost, first elected in 2014, lacks standing in part because there is little chance he could lose a reelection contest. “There are some districts where the Republican registered parties are 98%; Democrats, too,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her question to the plaintiffs. “Your rule [allowing any candidate to have standing on election law] would say that the candidate who has not just an insubstantial, but a statistically almost impossible chance of winning or losing—that that candidate can come in and seek a change of that rule. Correct?”  Paul Clement, representing Bost and the electors, said any candidate should have standing in an election law case.  “As to the 2% voter, I’m going to stand with the 2% candidate. I stand in lockstep with the Socialist Workers Party, and however many percentage votes John Anderson got,” Clement said, referring to 1980 independent presidential candidate John Anderson.  Sotomayor replied, “Those are strange bedfellows you’re taking.” Clement said, “But I’m delighted to have those bedfellows, because that’s the way we think about elections in this country.” Illinois Solicitor General Jane Elinor Notz argued for a much stricter standard for a candidate to have standing to bring election law litigation.  Notz said “the substantial risk of losing an election” would be the key standard for standing in an election law case. Other examples she cited were “risk of not getting on the ballot” or “risk of not qualifying for public funding.” Justice Neil Gorsuch later asked if it might be “unseemly” for a federal court to prognosticate through their rulings what candidates have a good chance and what candidates don’t.  Notz replied, “I don’t think it’s more unseemly than in other cases where a plaintiff seeks to establish standing based on a substantial risk. “What I think a lot of people believe to be true, which is that loosening the rules for counting votes like this generally hurts Republican candidates, generally helps Democratic candidates,” Justice Samuel Alito said. He then asked why the plaintiffs didn’t include a more direct argument about that in their written brief that they filed with the lower court: “Why didn’t you pursue that? Why didn’t you try to do something with that?”  Clement replied, “When you plead a case in district court, you don’t expect to be in the Supreme Court defending every pleading that was sufficient understanding.” The justices who were appointed by Republican presidents generally seemed more open to granting standing, while the three Democrat appointees seemed more skeptical.  However, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested it’s not clear Bost is harmed by the law.  “You could argue that he will actually benefit from the additional time,” Thomas said. “Someone has to benefit, or there wouldn’t be a risk of competitive harm.” Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan seemed to be of two minds on the standing question.  “It seems quite inconsistent with our standing law to say, ‘Oh, we just have, like, an automatic rule for candidate standing.’ On the other hand, I’m sort of in sympathy with the view that this bar should not be all that high and that you shouldn’t have to say, “Here are the polls that show I could lose as a result of this rule,’” Kagan said. “It’s like, all you have to do is come in and say why it is that the rule puts you at a disadvantage relative to what’s come before.” Utah is the only other state that accepts ballots 14 days after Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Alaska and Maryland allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 10 days after the election. Meanwhile, 10 other states allow ballots to arrive seven or fewer days after Election Day.  The post What to Expect From Supreme Court Case on Ballots That Come in After Elections appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Majority of Americans Support Deportation of Illegals, Says ... NYT/Siena?

On Sunday’s PBS News Weekend, anchor John Yang introduced a self-satisfied segment on a new documentary from the literary leftists at PEN America, based on the misnomer that books are being “banned” from schools and public libraries, as opposed to being removed due to concerns over age appropriateness regarding explicit sexual content. ANCHOR JOHN YANG: Still to come on PBS News Weekend, a new documentary on the school librarians fighting against escalating book bans…. PBS is picking up the baton from their public radio cohorts at NPR, which has made a cottage industry conducting performative preening over so-called “book bans,” often when the American Library Association’s “Banned Books Week” rolls around. YANG: Public school libraries across America have become battlegrounds in the culture wars. In a coordinated nationwide effort, groups are pushing bans on books they consider to be inappropriate for school age children. A new report from Pen America, the literature and human rights group, says that in the 2024-‘25 school year, there were more than 6,800 book bans in U.S. public schools. 80% of them were in just three states, Florida, Texas and Tennessee. A new documentary called The Librarians examines the experiences of school librarians who found themselves on the front lines in this battle against censorship, often at the cost of their well-being and their jobs. Censorship is a histrionic description of removing or limiting access to books in public schools. The books selected by librarians should not be "challenged" for any reason. It's not a "banned book" when librarians refuse to stock a book.  Nowhere in this seven-minute promotional (and unanimous) segment does Yang disclose that this documentary is funded by the Independent Television Service, financed like PBS stations through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's slated to air on the PBS show Independent Lens next February. YANG: The film will be shown in more than 50 cities across the country beginning today, which is the start of Banned Books Week, sponsored by the American Library Association and the Banned Books Week Coalition. Kim Snyder is the director of The Librarians, and Audrey Wilson-Youngblood is one of the librarians featured in the film…. Isn't it fascinating that PBS and NPR do extremely one-sided interviews with leftists and allow no conservative opposing view on the "book bans"? Amid the righteous preening there was no admission that it’s the American left wing that has done the closest thing to actually banning books (as in making them hard or impossible to obtain), strangling some in the crib through nasty social media pressure -- whether it be novels for the Young Adult market withdrawn from publication or exposes of harmful left-wing fads like "transgender children." Amazon banned Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage and Ryan Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment from sale. Not to mention the discouraging of free expression through the banes of “sensitivity readers” and posthumous editing of children’s classics by author Roald Dahl. After the writer’s estate pulled them from publication, six Dr. Seuss books were not only pulled from sale but were delisted from eBay, a secondary market, making it harder to even buy a book, much less borrow one from a library. That’s closer to an actual ban than anything seen from concerned parents’ groups. But PBS thinks conservatives questioning school librarians are guilty of "intolerance," even....violence!?  YANG: Audrey, what do students, the students you work with, tell you about the effect these bans are having on them? WILSON-YOUNGBLOOD: In their own words, they would tell me that they felt like when people wanted to remove books that featured characters with similar experiences to them, that they felt like it meant that those same people wanted them removed from schools. One student said, they don’t want books like this in the library. They must believe that I don’t belong here either. So they absolutely saved a connection between the censoring of these stories and an intolerance, a violence against their own lived and personal experiences. Yang wrapped up the interview with this softball: "Kim, these, as PEN America says, this has become normalized, these book bans. What is it that you want audiences to walk away with?" She said school board elections matter, that people get involved in "protecting kids' rights." A transcript is available, click "Expand." PBS News Weekend October 5, 2025 John Yang: Public school libraries across America have become battlegrounds in the culture wars. In a coordinated nationwide effort, groups are pushing bans on books they consider to be inappropriate for school age children. A new report from Pen America, the literature and human rights group, says that in the 2024-'25 school year, there were more than 6,800 book bans in U.S. public schools. 80% of them were in just three states, Florida, Texas and Tennessee. A new documentary called "The Librarians" examines the experiences of school librarians who found themselves on the front lines in this battle against censorship, often at the cost of their well-being and their jobs. Woman: Part of the ethics of our profession to support the First Amendment and fight censorship. Woman: I've had former students reach out to me that have told me books have saved them. I'm going to speak out about it. Woman: This is not a communist nation. You do not get to pick our reading material. John Yang: The film will be shown in more than 50 cities across the country beginning today, which is the start of Banned Books Week, sponsored by the American Library Association and the Banned Books Week Coalition. Kim Snyder is the director of The Librarians, and Audrey Wilson-Youngblood is one of the librarians featured in the film. Kim, what drew you to tell this story and also tell it through librarians? Kim Snyder, Director, "The Librarians": Well, back in the fall of 21. I had seen news about something that was called the Kraus List, when a state senator in Texas issued a list of 850 books to be removed from school shelves. And they were mainly targeting books that had LGBTQ characters, race, and sexuality. And I then learned about a small group of librarians in Texas calling themselves the Freedom Fighters, who were speaking out and connecting with librarians, including Audrey, who I soon after became connected to and really hearing from librarians all across the country that were facing attacks. And, you know, we've been hearing about the book bans, but this siege on librarians was something I felt that was really important to document. And so for the past four years, that's what we've done. John Yang: We should say that in the film, you show a number of the threats that are being made against librarians who are opposing these book bans. Let's take a look. Man: I'm doing a criminal investigation into some of your staff. Woman: I cannot imagine my face on the wanted poster and my friends being taken away in handcuffs. Woman: You're coming for teachers and librarians, and they know it. John Yang: Audrey, we heard you in a little bit of you in that clip. We don't see you because you were shot in silhouette, but then later in the film, you do show your face. What made you decide that you wanted to stand up and be seen and be known? Audrey Wilson-Youngblood, Librarian: The urgency behind the message and the call to action in the film required me to be brave like the other collaborators in the film. And my hope is that just that one act of resilience and courage might inspire other librarians to speak up and to tell their stories and tell the stories of their students whose reading materials are being pulled from the shelves. And it really wasn't a choice from there. John Yang: Audrey, why is it important for people who live in states and communities where there aren't these book ban campaigns to be aware of this and to be aware of what's going on in other places? Audrey Wilson-Youngblood: I don't think there's many places that are really immune to what is happening. And the more that it spreads, the more it's likely to come to your community and to impact where you are as well. We hope that no matter where people are in their communities, whether it's impacting them directly, that they will turn around and tell someone the story and bring the films to their communities so that when and if this does begin to happen, they'll know how to respond and they'll form a network and they'll form their own movement so that they can counter it. John Yang: Kim, how did the communities where you filmed react to you? And I don't know if they've seen the film or not and react to the film. Kim Snyder: It's been really heartening to see the nerve. This is striking. There's certainly a really alarming, I think, reaction to the film, but also really hopeful because you see people like Audrey and some of these other, not just librarians, but people in places where they really have a lot to lose, there's a lot of risk, and they're doing it to really uphold some of the most fundamentally American values. John Yang: Audrey, what do students, the students you work with, tell you about the effect these bans are having on them? Audrey Wilson-Youngblood: In their own words, they would tell me that they felt like when people wanted to remove books that featured characters with similar experiences to them, that they felt like it meant that those same people wanted them removed from schools. One student said, they don't want books like this in the library. They must believe that I don't belong here either. So they absolutely saved a connection between the censoring of these stories and an intolerance, a violence against their own lived and personal experiences. John Yang: Kim, these, as Pen America says, this has become normalized, these book bans. What is it that you want audiences to walk away with? Kim Snyder: I think what we want audiences to walk away with is that we see in the film, the hope in the film is not only the courage, but the agency that there is a certain agency in standing up for what right, what you believe in these values, in protecting kids rights and to really get involved. School board races really matter. Elections not in such in the sense of a partisan fight, but just in the sense of knowing how policies in your town and the library board, how they affect your librarians, your libraries. And we want people to, you know, take cues from our courageous characters in standing up for what's right. John Yang: Director Kim Snyder, School librarian Audrey Wilson-Youngblood, thank you both very much. Audrey Wilson-Youngblood: Thank you.

President Donald Trump pinpointed two main areas of focus when criticizing the NFL's Super Bowl LX plans for February.During an appearance on Newsmax with host Greg Kelly on Monday, Trump was asked about the NFL's decision to have Puerto Rican singer Bad Bunny perform at the annual halftime show.'I never heard of him. I don't know who he is.'Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, aka Bad Bunny, has been accused of being an odd choice for football fans given the simple fact that he performs mostly in Spanish. This is coupled with the artist's criticisms of the president — which include mocking him in a music video — and previous statements about avoiding U.S. cities on his tour because he fears immigration enforcement may occur outside of his concerts.In a clip from Newsmax, Trump admitted to never having heard of the singer."I never heard of him. I don't know who he is. I don't know why they're doing it. It's, like, crazy," the president said. "And then they blame it on some promoter that they hired to pick up entertainment. I think it's absolutely ridiculous."In the NFL's Super Bowl announcement, the league explained exactly who is in charge of the halftime performance.RELATED: Bad Bunny: Learn Spanish if you want to understand my Super Bowl performance Bad Bunny. Photo by Michael Kovac/Getty Images for GLAAD "Apple Music, the NFL, and Roc Nation announced that 3x Grammy Award-winning global recording artist Bad Bunny will perform at the Apple Music Super Bowl LX Halftime Show at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. on Sunday, February 8, 2026, airing on NBC," the NFL wrote in a press release.Apple Music's key figure is listed as Oliver Schusser, vice president of Apple Music and international content.Roc Nation, the company founded by rapper Jay-Z, has been involved with Super Bowl halftime shows since 2019. In the same press release, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter said Bad Bunny's "unique ability to bridge genres, languages, and audiences makes him an exciting and natural choice to take the Super Bowl halftime stage."In response to the announcement, Trump administration adviser Corey Lewandowski said there is "nowhere that you can provide safe haven to people in this country illegally. Not the Super Bowl and nowhere else."According to Variety, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson called it "a terrible decision" for the NFL to have Bad Bunny perform.Meanwhile, when hosting "Saturday Night Live" last weekend, Bad Bunny responded to criticisms in a lighthearted manner but also noted in Spanish that the booking was "an achievement" for himself and Puerto Ricans.He concluded by saying in English: "And if you didn't understand what I just said, you have four months to learn."RELATED: Super Bowl platforms anti-ICE DRAG QUEEN rapper Bad Bunny to troll MAGA Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images On Newsmax, the president aired another grievance with the NFL, saying, "While we're at it, I'd like them to change the kickoff rule, which looks ridiculous, where the ball is kicked and the ball is floating in the air, and everyone's standing there watching it. It's ridiculous."The president claimed the new kickoff formation is "not any safer" than the previous format, which the league abandoned before the 2024 season. The NFL claimed in January, however, that concussions in 2024 were down 43% when compared to the 2021-2023 average."I think it just looks so terrible," Trump continued. "I think it really demeans football, to be honest with you. It's a great game, but it demeans football. Do you know what I mean by that? The kickoff rule, the new kickoff rule, it's ridiculous."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement continue to erupt into violence, President Trump has called for a liberal mayor and governor to be imprisoned for their lack of law enforcement intervention.ICE agents and facilities in Chicago have faced violent attacks from activists opposed to the president's ramped up deportation orders, and local lawmakers have been accused of withholding aid from law enforcement.Border Patrol vehicles were boxed in by other cars, and agents fired upon a female protester who allegedly brandished a 'semi-automatic weapon.'On Wednesday, the president dropped the message on Truth Social against Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, both Democrats."Chicago Mayor should be in jail for failing to protect Ice Officers! Governor Pritzker also!" he wrote.The president might have been responding to comments the governor made against the deployment of 400 troops from the Texas National Guard to quell the anti-ICE violence in Chicago."We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion. It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops," wrote Pritzker on social media Sunday.Pritzker went on to call on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, to refuse the order from the president."There is no reason a President should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation," he added.Mayor Johnson has also actively opposed deportation operations in Chicago by announcing the creation of "ICE-free zones" meant to undermine the ability of federal agents to use public spaces for staging."The order builds a broad civic shield that limits the reach of harmful enforcement practices," Johnson said at a media briefing on Monday. "It strengthens neighborhood solidarity, and it reaffirms Chicago's role as a welcoming city. The fact is, we cannot allow them to rampage throughout our city with no checks or balances. Nobody is above the law. If we break the law, you should be held accountable. If Congress will not check this administration, then Chicago will."RELATED: Chicago's liberal mayor scolds reporter for using 'mob' to describe hundreds of teens looting and trashing store Federal officials had increased deportation efforts in Chicago over the sanctuary city policies that were imposed to protect illegal immigrants.One of the more violent episodes unfolded on Saturday when Border Patrol vehicles were boxed in by other cars, and agents fired upon a female protester who allegedly brandished a "semi-automatic weapon," according to the Department of Homeland Security.Pritzker's office responded to a Blaze News request for comment by citing a social media thread from the governor. "I will not back down. Trump is now calling for the arrest of elected representatives checking his power. What else is left on the path to full-blown authoritarianism?" he wrote in part. "We must all stand up and speak out," he added. A Blaze News request for comment from Johnson's office was not immediately answered.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tim Kaine: The Lesson From Jay Jones Is Dems Can Wish Republicans and Kids Dead and Still Run for Office

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem Challenges CNN’s Kaitlan Collins to Visit Embattled ICE Facility in Portland

Dem Sen. Merkley Suggests Trump's DOJ/FBI Staged Portland Riots to Justify Federal Involvement

What in the World Has Happened to Kamala Harris? She's Off Dropping F-Bombs and Spreading Misinformation