Iowa Republicans advance bill expanding student religious and political speech rights in schools

DES MOINES -- Legislation advanced this week by Republican state lawmakers would expand students’ rights to religious, political and ideological speech and expression in Iowa public schools, including in classrooms, student clubs and school activities.

The bill would allow students to sue districts that violate the rules.

Supporters say clearer state law is needed to prevent viewpoint discrimination and guarantee equal treatment for student organizations. Critics contend much of the proposal is largely redundant and already covered by existing law, could open loopholes for extremist groups, and would invite costly litigation through mandatory civil penalties.

The bill, Senate File 2062 — described by backers as the “SPEAKS Act” — cleared a Senate Education subcommittee Thursday along party lines. Republican Sens. Sandy Salmon, of Janesville, and Mike Pike, of Des Moines, approved advancing the measure. Sen. Herman Quirmbach, a Democrat from Ames, said he was “interested in discussing an amendment,” suggesting he may be open to changes that reduce mandates and adjust enforcement.

On Thursday, House lawmakers advanced an identical bill, House File 2106, out of a three-member subcommittee along party lines.

Republican state Rep. Samantha Fett of Carlisle, who is sponsoring the House legislation, said the bill is meant to restore “constitutional clarity” to student free speech rights in Iowa.

“This isn't about dividing either side. It's about bringing them together and understanding that we can have conversations and disagree,” Fett said.

  Buy Photo

Fett and Republican Rep. Helena Hayes of New Sharon signed on to advance the legislation. Democratic state Rep. Angel Ramirez of Cedar Rapids declined to do so, expressing concern that the bill would interfere with the ability of schools to balance student free speech while providing safe learning environments.

Supporters say bill brings clarity, consistency to speech protections

Supporters of the bill, including Lance Kinzer, testifying on behalf of the First Amendment Partnership, pointed to past litigation as evidence that clearer state law is needed to avoid costly disputes. He referenced lawsuits brought by Business Leaders in Christ and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship against the University of Iowa after the school revoked their student organization status over leadership requirements tied to religious beliefs.

Federal courts ultimately ruled the university engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and the state paid nearly $2 million in attorney fees and damages. Kinzer argued that those cases show how unclear or unevenly applied standards can expose public institutions — and taxpayers — to expensive litigation, something he said the bill is designed to prevent in K-12 schools. The goal, he said, is “having a clear statute that school districts can look at … is going to be conflict reducing.”

Sara Beth Nolan, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, told the subcommittee students should be able to participate in school “on the same terms as their classmates, without fear of discrimination based on their constitutionally protected speech.” Nolan described the bill as aligning Iowa policy with long-standing Supreme Court precedent that students do not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate,” while still allowing schools to address disruption.

Amber Williams, speaking for Inspired Life, said existing protections are not being applied consistently, leading schools to restrict speech based on viewpoint rather than behavior. She cited student-led clubs such as Turning Point USA — the conservative advocacy group co-founded by the late Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in September while speaking at Utah Valley University — saying chapters that meet the same requirements as other student organizations have nonetheless faced added hurdles because of their views.

“This bill doesn’t take sides. It takes the Constitution seriously,” Williams said. She emphasized the proposal would not interfere with academic standards, curriculum decisions or classroom management, but would instead help schools by requiring the Department of Education to share federal guidance so existing laws are applied consistently and fairly.

“This legislation doesn’t expand student rights,” she said. “It enforces them and ensures equal treatment for every student.”

Patty Alexander, a retired educator from Indianola, told lawmakers she worries students face consequences for expressing unpopular views. She recounted a local report in which a parent alleged a student was disqualified from National Honor Society over political views, and said a teacher in that account called Trump-supporting students “brainwashed.”

Salmon said the bill “restores constitutional clarity in Iowa schools” and creates “uniform statewide protection.” She argued districts have been “increasingly inconsistent in applying First Amendment standards,” and said the measure would ensure students “do not lose their First Amendment rights when they come to school.”

  Buy Photo

“Students deserve equal treatment, not selective enforcement,” she said. “ … This prevents schools from silencing viewpoints they disagree with. Parents expect schools to respect their children's rights when children get to the school.

Opponents warn of loopholes, litigation and confusion for schools

Opponents and undecided groups told lawmakers the bill could create new problems while restating principles already covered by federal law.

  Buy Photo

Keenan Crow of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Iowa said his organization was registered “undecided,” but warned about language protecting clubs from discrimination based on “any requirement” that members or leaders adhere to beliefs or conduct standards. Crow said that provision could “open up the possibility of, for instance, white supremacy or male supremacy clubs,” and argued the bill’s limiting language was “extremely vague” and might not effectively prevent harmful groups from gaining equal access.

Damian Thompson, representing Iowa Safe Schools, said the group also was “undecided” but raised questions about the bill’s scope and intent. Thompson asked what “specific constitutional gap” the legislation is meant to address, noting that “the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act” already prohibit viewpoint discrimination against student clubs. Thompson also questioned why the bill moves “beyond access to student clubs and into the classroom instruction,” saying Supreme Court precedent has preserved educator discretion in instructional settings.

Emily Piper, representing the Iowa Association of School Boards, urged lawmakers to reject the bill, saying it could conflict with existing standards and create confusion. Piper pointed to language in the bill that would bar schools from discriminating against or penalizing students for religious, political or ideological speech, so long as that expression occurs in the same time, place and manner as speech by other “similarly situated” students. She argued that the undefined standard could create confusion for districts trying to determine when different students or groups are comparable, potentially complicating how schools apply long-standing free speech rules.

Piper also said federal guidance on prayer and religious expression “advises against evaluating student speech using the comparative approach,” adding that the bill could be “in direct conflict with the guidance” it requires schools to circulate.

Democrat questions penalties, says bill needs changes

Quirmbach said he largely agrees with the underlying constitutional framework but questioned whether Iowa needs to “clog up the code books” with a new statute.

  Buy Photo

Quirmbach also flagged the bill’s mandatory civil penalty — at least $5,000 — for violations. He said injunctions and court orders are typically sufficient in student speech disputes and worried the penalty structure could attract lawsuits motivated by money: “That’s not what the courts are for,” he said, adding he would rather see “appropriate avenues for judicial relief, not involving financial benefits.”

The bill now heads to the full Senate Education Committee for further consideration.

Lee Des Moines Bureau Chief Maya Marchel Hoff contributed to this report.

Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com