Three letters sent by Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett to the Stones River Regional Library System have set off a series of chain reactions, including library closures and a contentious Rutherford County Library System (RCLS) Board meeting that pitted the word of the library director against the board chair.

Hargett’s first letter, dated September 8, 2025, directed libraries to follow all federal, state, and local laws, despite previous instructions at the beginning of 2025 that only state law need be followed. Hargett pointed specifically to President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” issued on Inauguration Day in January 2025, which establishes that the U.S. government will recognize only two sexes, male and female. An executive order is not a legal statute passed by Congress, but rather presidential guidance.

An October 27 letter then called for each of the Stones River system’s 26 libraries to “undertake an immediate age-appropriateness review (over the next 60 days) of all materials in your juvenile children’s section” to “identify any materials that may be inconsistent with Tennessee age-appropriateness laws, in violation of any federal law.” That letter, and a third dated October 31, addressed RCLS library and board leadership and management specifically.

Library directors were given until January 19 to provide a final report to Hargett and the Tennessee State Librarian and Archivist. Noncomplying libraries are threatened with losing state and federal funding, including grants, although the review process guidelines that libraries need to follow were not clear.

In response, an open letter to Hargett signed by organizations including the American Library Association (ALA), PEN America, EveryLibrary, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Association for Rural and Small Libraries, Penguin Random House, Macmillan Publishers, Simon & Schuster, and 25 others, noted that using the executive order to remove books from the library may violate state and federal law. The letter demanded clarification of what the “age appropriateness review” would involve.

AN ONGOING FIGHT

According to Keri Lambert, vice president of the Rutherford County Library Alliance, a nonprofit that supports county libraries and librarians, opposition to the freedom to read in Rutherford County dates back several years.

In July 2023, Murfreesboro officials passed a “decency ordinance,” which stated that it would ban “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct,” noting that sexual conduct included “homosexuality”—essentially, “they made it illegal to be gay in Murfreesboro in public,” Lambert said. The ordinance was repealed that December after a lawsuit was filed the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and others. But anti-LGBTQIA+ views continued to play out in local libraries, she told LJ, with residents railing against “obscene material” at RCLS library board meetings.

“Within the first month of my being promoted to being a supervisor, I was told to be careful about ordering any LGBTQ books,” former MGL Branch Supervisor Kristen Birckholtz told LJ. “It was very much made clear to me that this was from the board.” Birckholtz, who left RCLS in June 2025, stated that as a gay woman she felt that “I had to go back in the closet right away.” Library board members were aligned with the sentiments expressed in the ordinance, she alleged; “They never spoke about equal rights or treating people with dignity or respect.” (Birckholtz’s views expressed to LJ are personal and do not reflect those of her current employer.)

Several RCLS books saw challenges, including The Antiracist Kid, Gender Queer, Flamer, and Maus. In response, library cards were given age restrictions: 0–11, 12–18, and adult. Nonfiction was broken up into Juvenile, YA, and Adult. One resident went to the County Commission and suggested that they withhold library funding until the entire collection had been looked over, with any book containing objectionable content removed.

In October 2025, the RCLS board began to talk about removing library policies, specifically its Freedom to Read statement, and proposed cutting ties with ALA.

Shortly after, three recently challenged books, which the board had previously voted to keep in the library—Forever, The Antiracist Kid, and Over the River & Through the Wood: A Holiday Adventure (which describes diverse families)—disappeared from the library catalog.

After receiving Hargett’s October 31 letter, RCLS Board Chair Cody York signed a legal retainer with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a politically conservative, Christian-based legal organization, without full board approval or notice to the public. In its retainer letter, the ACLJ advised York that he would be personally liable for any legal fees incurred.

On November 5, RCLS announced that it would be closing several of its six locations to conduct reviews of its books.

A TENSE BOARD MEETING

The December 1 RCLS Board meeting was attended by more than 100 people and lasted nearly four hours, including an extended private executive session for the board to consult ACLJ.

Emotions were high throughout. Those in favor of the review process called on the community to protect their children—as did those who spoke against Hargett’s directive, such as one woman who said, “Predators don’t operate through library shelves. They operate through secrecy, shame, and children’s lack of knowledge.”

York was also called out for retaining ACLJ without board or community support. “If Mr. York’s actions continue, it’s a matter of when, not if, the library will be sued,” stated one speaker.

When RCLS Director Luanne James took the stand, she first asked to be granted whistleblower status—protection against retaliation given to someone who reports misconduct. James, who stepped into the role in July 2025 to replace retired Director Rita Shacklett, then recounted a meeting with York on her second day in which, she alleged, he instructed her to remove books from the collection and told her that he had checked out and kept the books that had disappeared from library shelves the previous year.

James also alleged that York requested private data about library patrons, including their names, addresses, and checkout histories, which she refused to do.

“These are very serious accusations,” York replied. “I deny them categorically.” He asked for patron information, he said, because he was trying to track down out-of-area use of RCLS library cards. And he stated that he had merely pointed out the books he had concerns about to James, and that she had acted inappropriately by removing them on her own rather than bringing the requests for reconsideration before the board. Neither had a record of the meeting beyond James’s notes. “This is your word versus his,” board member K. Beth Duffield told her.

Board member Allison Belt motioned to remove York as board chair. Belt and recently appointed member Angela Frederick voted in favor, but the motion failed in a 2–7 roll call vote; York abstained. Belt and Frederick were also the sole members who voted against York’s measure that the board retroactively approve his signing of a legal retainer with ACLJ, which was approved 8–2.

RCLA “is extremely disappointed in the majority of the RCLS board for not only retaining Cody York as chair, but not even discussing an investigation into the extremely serious allegations made under whistleblower protection by the director of libraries,” said Lambert. “Mr. York’s choice to victim-blame the director only served to make it patently clear to everyone watching that he could very well be responsible for creating a hostile work environment. It appears that the majority of the board is more concerned about protecting one individual rather than upholding the duties and responsibilities that come with serving on our public library board, eroding public trust in the governance of this body.”

James reported that the library had not yet completed its collection review, as per Hargett’s directive, and requested an extension to the January 19 deadline. She was given two more weeks. As of the meeting, library staff had identified 2,200 titles—out of nearly 80,000 items—for removal from RCLS shelves; the books now cannot be searched in the library’s public catalog and are unavailable to borrow. They will undergo further review by James and the RCLS collection development manager. The board has requested a detailed report on these titles before its February 3 meeting. Birkholtz stated that staff members said they would submit titles, but not notes. “The librarians are not going to do that for the board,” she told LJ. “The board will have to do it themselves.”