A circuit court judge in Harford County, Maryland, has upheld a state education board’s decision to overturn a local school board’s removal of a graphic novel from school libraries, prompting lawmakers, educators and civil rights advocates to welcome the ruling.
Circuit Judge Yolanda Curtin delivered the decision following a hearing on Thursday, marking the first court test of Maryland’s Freedom to Read Act, enacted in 2024 to restrict the removal of library materials based on authors’ backgrounds or “partisan, ideological or religious disapproval.”
The dispute centred on Flamer, a young-adult graphic novel by Mike Curato that explores a teenage boy’s experiences with sexuality, religion, bullying and suicidal thoughts while attending a summer camp before entering high school. Curtin’s ruling upheld a November 4, 2025, decision by the Maryland State Board of Education, which found that the Harford County Board of Education had acted improperly in ordering the book’s removal.
Del. Dana Jones, a Democrat representing Anne Arundel County and the lead sponsor of the legislation, said the court’s decision demonstrated that the law was achieving its intended purpose.
In a statement issued through the office of the Maryland House speaker, Jones said the ruling showed the law was “doing exactly what it was intended to do: protecting our libraries, librarians, and the fundamental freedom to read.”
“When we passed this landmark law, we made a commitment that books would not be removed from our libraries simply because of partisan, ideological, or religious objections,” Jones said. “Parents have every right to make decisions about what their own children read, but no single individual or school board should be able to make that decision for every family.”
The Harford County Board of Education had not immediately responded to a request for comment on Friday.
The controversy began in November 2024 when a parent lodged a complaint against Flamer, raising concerns about its content despite acknowledging that she had not read the entire book. She argued that the sections she had examined were inconsistent with the community’s values and could influence children who were still exploring their identities or experiencing mental health difficulties.
According to documents from the state education board, the parent expressed concern that the book “does not reveal local resources that may be out there for those struggling with their identity,” prompting a formal review under the county’s established procedures.
Under Maryland’s Freedom to Read Act, Harford County had established a review mechanism for challenges to school library materials. The process required a nine-member Reconsideration Subcommittee comprising a community representative, two parents, two students in grades eight through 12, a teacher, a school administrator, a librarian and a curriculum specialist.
Members were required to read the entire work under review, consult professionally prepared reviews and lists of awards, and examine the Harford County Public Schools’ evaluation procedure before deciding whether a book should remain available, be moved to another educational level or be removed entirely. The committee’s recommendation was then forwarded to the county superintendent for a final decision.
The subcommittee examined Flamer in March 2025, considering its depictions of partial nudity, profanity, sexual identity, homosexuality, bullying, suicidal ideation and masturbation. After reviewing the material, members concluded that the scenes were not excessive and were “contextually appropriate.” They also determined that the novel’s literary and artistic qualities made it suitable for students.
The panel voted to retain the book in high school libraries, including schools that combine middle and high school grades. County Superintendent accepted the recommendation on May 15, 2025, informing the complainant that the novel possessed “literary and artistic merit, educational and community value, and professional recognition.” He also maintained that the book, when considered as a complete work, offered value to the community.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the parent appealed to the Harford County Board of Education, which subsequently reversed the decision.
Following a private meeting, the local board announced on July 1, 2025, that it had voted 5-3, with one member abstaining, to remove Flamer from school libraries. The board argued that school administrators had not adequately assessed the book’s suitability for students’ ages and pointed to what it described as extensive profanity, sexual situations and demeaning observations about women.
Explaining its decision, the board cited “the pervasive vulgarity and the novels’ absence of educational suitability.”
The decision prompted a further appeal to the Maryland State Board of Education by a group of parents, a local advocacy organisation and the Harford County Education Association. The appellants challenged the removal of the book and sought to overturn the local board’s decision.
In its November 4, 2025, ruling, the state board sided with the challengers, concluding that the county board had not established that the superintendent and reconsideration subcommittee acted improperly or failed to follow the prescribed review process.
The state board also questioned whether local board members had adequately examined the novel before deciding to remove it.
“Where the Reconsideration Sub-committee received training and took detailed notes on a book that all members were required to read in full, there is nothing in the record that indicates the local board members even read the book beyond some choice passages, which were not identified,” the state board said in its opinion.
“Nor did the local board provide any evidence of how the Reconsideration Sub-committee’s review was inconsistent with the Evaluation Procedure.”
The county board subsequently challenged the state education board’s decision in court. However, Curtin ruled against the local board on Thursday, leaving the state board’s decision intact.
Sonia Kumar, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, which argued the case, described the judgment as “a victory for the freedom to read.”
In a statement released by the organisation on Friday, Kumar said the decision reinforced protections for students’ access to books representing diverse experiences and perspectives.
“This historic decision affirms the promise of Maryland’s Freedom to Read Act and the First Amendment: students deserve access to books that reflect the richness of our experiences, identities, and perspectives, free from censorship,” Kumar said.
