Opinion: SCOTUS and Project 2025 supercharged censorship. New York must push back.

We are living in a moment of unprecedented censorship. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Mahmoud v. Taylor and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, coupled with Project 2025’s blueprint for a second Trump presidency, outline a perilous future. Together, they invite parents to structure class curricula based on their religion, empower governments to surveil what adults read online, and promise a return to cultural repression. States have an essential role to play as a bulwark against this attempted revival of McCarthyism, when America was not so great for a lot of people.

That is why New York’s Freedom to Read Act matters. The bill requires schools to maintain inclusive and diverse library collections and shields librarians from political pressure. It was passed by the state Legislature and now awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature. At a time when the nation’s highest court is retreating from free expression and think tanks are plotting the next wave of censorship, New York can model how states can take a critical step against censorship. 

The Mahmoud decision cracked open the door to religious veto power over classrooms. For decades, the law was clear: rules that apply equally to everyone aren’t struck down just because they incidentally affect someone’s religion. No longer. A six-justice majority held that requiring students to be present for books like “Pride Puppy” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court announced a new “fact-intensive” test for determining whether a book undermines religious beliefs. The result is that many schools will self-censor and over-censor to avoid the logistical burden of providing a separate classroom for children with religious objections. Significantly, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, the logic of the case extends beyond books about LGBTQ+ people and could affect books featuring interracial couples or women who work outside the home.

In Paxton, the Court upheld a Texas law that forces invasive age verification for any website with sexual content. Texas’ law purports to protect kids. In reality, it requires adults to turn over government IDs or personal data to access lawful material. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent explained what the majority ignored. This is not a minor burden. It is a new form of surveillance that will chill speech far beyond pornography. Once governments can justify burdens on speech by claiming they protect children, nothing stops them from extending that logic to websites about reproductive health or LGBTQ+ lives. Idaho has already passed a law enabling libraries to restrict conduct that it deems “harmful” to minors, which could include books with LGBTQ+ themes, puberty education or books that discuss reproductive healthcare. 

Add Project 2025, and the picture sharpens. The plan calls for deleting the words “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “reproductive health” from federal documents. It proposes purging the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and even criminalizing librarians who provide books deemed inappropriate. One of its architects has already demanded a national porn ban. However, despite the scale of the threat, most states have met it with silence and disappointing inertia. 

This is why New York’s Freedom to Read Act matters. It requires schools to maintain inclusive and diverse library collections. It empowers librarians to make professional decisions rather than leaving them at the mercy of political pressure. It establishes statewide policies for selecting and challenging books so that local boards cannot quietly erase marginalized voices. In short, it ensures that young people in New York can learn about the full world they live in, not just the version that makes some adults comfortable.

Most Americans oppose book bans. Parents can already decide what their own children read. What they cannot do is dictate what every child reads. The Freedom to Read Act protects against that.

New York should not stop there. Hochul should improve the Freedom to Read Act to grant students the right to challenge censorship when administrators or librarians improperly remove materials. 

Other states are already starting to take action. Illinois and California already have strong protections for libraries. Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts are considering similar measures. New York can be a national model, just as the American Legislative Exchange Council has long churned out model bills for the right. We need progressive models, too.

The governor faces a choice. She can sign this bill and make New York a leader in defending intellectual freedom, or she can let the state drift while the courts and think tanks chip away at our rights. The Supreme Court has already shown how fragile the First Amendment can be when it is weaponized to protect censorship rather than free expression. 

We have seen what happens when fear drives censorship. We cannot go back to a world where books about queer families or racial justice disappear from classrooms and libraries. Signing the Freedom to Read Act would make New York a beacon for freedom of thought and the right to be seen.