Brian Schatz (D-HI)
A resolution expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning, and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.
A Democratic resolution with 16 Democratic cosponsors · See all 18 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5175-5176)
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
A Senate resolution is the Senate speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the Senate agrees to it, it is officially the Senate's word; it is not a law, so the House and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution expresses concern over the growing problem of book banning and threats to freedom of expression in the United States. It highlights thousands of instances of book bans across various states and federal institutions between 2025 and 2026. The text supports designating the week of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as Banned Books Week. It reaffirms the commitment to the First Amendment and the freedom to read without government censorship. The resolution calls on local governments and school districts to follow best practice guidelines for book challenges and protect the rights of students, educators, and librarians. Finally, it calls for the repeal of executive orders and directives that enact content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on reading and learning.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +8
Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life?
The resolution strongly reaffirms the commitment to First Amendment protections and freedom from government censorship.
- Scored +8
Does this protect the individual right to speak freely?
The text directly addresses and defends individual freedom of expression and the freedom to read without censorship.
- Scored +7
Would students be better off under this?
The resolution calls on school districts to protect the rights of students to learn by providing access to a wide array of books.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Support for Freedom of Expression: Resolution paragraph (3) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting the freedom of expression protected under the First Amendment and the freedom of all individuals to read books without government censorship. This is positive because it defends basic constitutional rights for everyday citizens.
-
Protection for Education and Teaching: Resolution paragraph (5) calls on local governments and school districts to protect the rights of students to learn and the ability of educators and librarians to teach by providing access to a wide array of books. This benefits students, teachers, and librarians who want an open learning environment.
-
Promotion of Best Practices: Resolution paragraph (4) calls on local governments and school districts to follow best practice guidelines when addressing challenges to books, which helps bring fairness and transparency to the book review process.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the text provided, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that create negative outcomes, burdens, or consequences for individuals or groups of people. The text itself describes negative impacts already happening due to existing book bans and executive orders, but the resolution text itself only proposes support for Banned Books Week, reaffirmation of free expression, and calls to repeal restrictions.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — The resolution calls on school districts to protect the rights of students to learn by providing access to a wide array of books. Would children be better off under this? — The resolution calls for protecting students' rights to access a diverse range of educational materials and books. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The resolution explicitly objects to the disproportionate banning of books with LGBTQ+ characters and themes. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The resolution supports young adult readers' access to literature and uncensored information. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The text speaks against the censorship of books addressing race, racism, and Black history. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The text recognizes and opposes challenges to literature addressing anti-Asian bias and experiences. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The text supports the inclusion of diverse perspectives and histories representing minority groups. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The resolution supports access to stories and histories regarding immigrants facing discrimination. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The resolution supports teaching and reading about the history and experiences of Native Americans.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — The resolution strongly reaffirms the commitment to First Amendment protections and freedom from government censorship. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The resolution opposes book bans that disproportionately target books with LGBTQ+ characters and themes. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The resolution supports access to literature and history concerning racial minorities and civil rights.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — The text directly addresses and defends individual freedom of expression and the freedom to read without censorship. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The resolution highlights concerns over mass removals and a lack of transparency regarding district-based book bans.
- 9/29/2026
- Submitted in Senate
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5175-5176)
- 18 Cosponsors added.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
John FettermanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Christopher MurphyDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Raphael WarnockDemocrat · Georgia
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island