116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
ACLU, Lambda Legal file new request to block Iowa school book ban
Iowa law prohibits sexual depictions in school materials and restricts teaching gender identity, sexual orientation
Oct. 21, 2024 5:24 pm, Updated: Oct. 22, 2024 2:10 pm
The Gazette offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
Attorneys representing some Iowa teachers and students have filed a new request asking a federal district court again block an Iowa law that has resulted in the removal of hundreds of books from Iowa public schools, including literary classics and those by Nobel Prize winners.
Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the law firm Jenner & Block LLP filed the request of behalf of the nonprofit LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Iowa Safe Schools, two teachers and six Iowa students and their families who they argue are affected by the law.
The lawsuit challenges the school library book restrictions as well as provisions that prohibit discussions of LGBTQ+ topics and requires educators to report to parents or guardians any request by a student to use an identity other than the one that corresponds with their sex at birth. Iowa Safe Schools says the provision puts students in harm’s way by forcing them to “out” themselves — sharing with others their sexual orientation or gender identity — before they are ready or to parents who are not supportive.
The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in August overturned a lower court injunction that had paused the 2023 Iowa law that bans books with certain sexual content from Iowa’s K-12 public schools.
The Iowa law signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds and passed by statehouse Republicans bans books with depictions of sex acts from K-12 schools and prohibits the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through sixth grade. The law exempts religious texts.
The lower court left in place the portion that requires educators to notify parents when a student asks to be called by a different gender.
Penguin Random House has filed a separate lawsuit to stop portions of the law relating only to the book ban.
The group of authors, publishers, education groups and LGBTQ+ advocates argue the law violates their First Amendment rights to free speech.
What’s new in the filing?
The new filings address the Eighth Circuit's concerns and include two new plaintiffs, both teachers at Des Moines public schools affected by the bans.
As Senate File 496 was implemented ahead of the 2023-24 school year, Iowa schools pulled hundreds of books off their shelves in fear of violating the new law, while many districts also expressed frustration with a lack of guidance from the state as to what materials violate the law.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs at the time expressed disappointment that the appellate court lifted the injunction, but also noted the Appeals Court made room for further legal challenges to the law.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, directing the lower court to apply a new U.S. Supreme Court case in analyzing the parties’ arguments.
Now the ACLU and Lambda have filed a request for a new preliminary injunction, which addresses a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Moody v. Netchoice. The case relates to a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that restrict how social media companies moderate content on their platforms.
The court said the compilation and curation of “others’ speech into an expressive product of its own” is entitled to First Amendment protection and that “the government cannot get its way just by asserting an interest in better balancing the marketplace of ideas.”
The Supreme Court vacated appellate court decisions, ruling that neither court adequately analyzed “the facial First Amendment challenges” to the laws — that is, whether the social media content moderation regulations in Florida and Texas would always be unconstitutional in all applications. The court sent the cases back down to the lower courts for reconsideration.
Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the majority opinion of the court, provided an outline of the legal principles that the lower courts should use in their analysis.
ACLU of Iowa attorney Thomas Story said the new filings conduct a new step-by-step analysis based on the standard proposed in Moody v. Netchoice — which was issued after the initial briefing and argument at the Eighth Circuit — to establish that the law is unconstitutional in many applications.
The amended complaint also includes updated information about what schools have done over the past year to comply with the state law. Two clients have left the case. One has graduated from high school and the other has transferred to a private school.
Attorney: Law meant to silence LGBTQ+ students, families
The attorneys emphasized the law's chilling effect on free speech and its harmful impact on students' mental health and safety.
Nathan Maxwell, Lambda Legal senior attorney, asserted SF 496 is meant to silence LGBTQ+ students and their families from classrooms, books and history. The attorneys argue that whenever advocates for the law cite examples of graphic content they believe should be banned from schools, they only use examples that depict sexual acts between LGBTQ characters or individuals, never depictions of heterosexual sex acts.
Maxwell argued the law is intentionally vague and overbroad, which has caused confusion among schools, leading to disparate advice from school district attorneys and causing schools to pull more books than necessary.
Lack of guidance by the state and disciplinary threats amplify the law’s chilling effect on speech and expression among students, Maxwell told reporters during a Monday news conference.
He said the law jeopardizes the mental health, physical safety, and overall well-being of LGBTQ+ students, increasing the risk of bullying, violence, homelessness, and even suicide.
“Now, schools should be sanctuaries that protect all students, including LGBTQ+ student unions,” Maxwell said. “Schools should be places where all kids can go to learn and thrive in a supportive environment. Now, by renewing our legal challenge to SF 496 we are reiterating that this law is not only unethical and contrary to the mission of public education, but that it is unconstitutional as well, and it must be overturned.”
Becky Tayler, executive director of Iowa Safe Schools, said SF 496 has resulted in increased instances of bullying and negative mental health outcomes among Iowa students.
“By supporting the policies enforced by SF 496, the state of Iowa is depriving students of valuable learning opportunities and undermining the principles of free expression, all while targeting marginalized youth,” Tayler told reporters Monday.
Daniel Gutmann, a fourth grade teacher in Des Moines, shared his personal experience with SF 496, including being prohibited from mentioning his husband in the presence of students.
“I was told that the administrator who met with me had misunderstood an attorney's advice. That someone with authority can misunderstand the law so grossly and feel required by law to make such a dehumanizing demand of me demonstrates the dangerous vagueness of Senate file 496,” Gutmann said during the news conference.
He said he fears his is not the only such conversation school administrators have had with LGBTQ+ educators in the state.
“I am passionately dedicated to fostering a love of learning and intellectual curiosity among my students in a classroom that welcomes a diversity of thoughts, experiences and perspectives,” Gutmann said. “ … Removing ideas from our classroom does not create learners devoid of those ideas. Eliminating representation in our libraries does not eliminate the diversity they represent. Pretending our world is made up of one thought does not make that thought more powerful.”
He added: “How many great educators have we lost or forced into the closet? How many students and families have we silenced?”
Iowa AG: ‘We will continue fighting to protect kids’
Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, in a statement to The Gazette, said schools should be a safe place for students to learn and grow, “not to get their hands on sexually explicit books while their parents are not around.”
“It is common sense — and the Courts agreed that the law is on our side,” Bird said. “Now, we are, again, making our case in court, but our mission remains the same; we will continue fighting to protect kids, uphold the law, and defend parental rights."
Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds’ office declined to comment on the new filing.
In arguments before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan contended the law regulates government, not private, speech. He also argued the lower court used an overly broad reading of the law to find “constitutional infirmities” to halt enforcement, and that state and federal courts require a narrower reading.
“This law was done by the Iowa Legislature with the intent of helping support Iowa's youth and in helping to curate the way that Iowa students learn,” he said. “… The state believes that if this injunction is vacated, the school districts, the schools and the students will understand what the law means. And as time moves forward, this will become an integral part of Iowa's educational landscape.”
Maxwell said the state has 30 days to file a response, and the timeline for further proceedings will depend on court scheduling.
“We are hoping to move this along as quickly as possible. I think we do want to address the harms that are happening right now and make sure we can put a stop to them as soon as possible,” he said. “But beyond that, it's pretty hard to predict exactly when we might expect any sort of decision from the court.”
Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com
Daily Newsletters