On December 22, Iowa state attorney Daniel Johnston argued before the court that school districts might be misinterpreting the scope of a new state law, Senate File 496 (SF 496), suggesting that the banning focused too much on sex acts instead of following the exact definition in the law. This legislation restricts schools from teaching LGBTQ-related topics and mandates the prohibition of books featuring explicit content.

Two lawsuits questioning the legality of SF 496 are now in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Iowa. In these cases, lawyers are currently seeking an injunction on the involvement of school districts in book removal.

The ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal argued that SF 496 discriminates against LGBTQ students, violating their rights to free speech, association, and equal protection. Another lawsuit involving the Iowa State Education Association and Penguin Random House also argued that the book ban in the law also goes against the First and 14th Amendments.

The Iowa State Education Association, Penguin Random House, and authors Laurie Halse Anderson, John Green, Malinda Lo, and Jodi Picoult, an Iowa parent, and some teachers also filed a lawsuit against the state. They argued that the book ban aspect of the law violates the First and 14th Amendments. 

READ ALSO: Illinois Takes Stand for Literary Freedom: No More Book Bans Starting Next Year

The legal proceedings also raised questions about specific books and the criteria for their removal under SF 496. Judge Stephen Locher asked Johnston whether books discussing the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton or the 2016 presidential election with allegations against Donald Trump would be subject to removal. The state attorney suggested that the former book could be removed. In contrast, the latter book is unlikely to be removed.

Controversially, the law's application to classic literary works, including Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse-Five,' and books addressing serious historical events, such as 'Night' by Elie Wiesel, has also been scrutinized. Johnston argued that the appropriateness of removal should depend on the specific content within these works.

Additionally, Johnston clarified that books containing LGBTQ characters do not necessarily warrant removal unless they involve explicit content outlined in SF 496. However, a restriction exists for students below the seventh grade, preventing them from reading such books in a classroom setting.

Locher expressed difficulty finding a universal legal standard in previous cases of removing books from school libraries. Unlike individual district decisions, the current lawsuit challenges a statewide law, SF 496, which has resulted in the removal of approximately 470 titles across 45 Iowa school districts.

The plaintiffs argued that SF 496 is unconstitutionally broad and vague, leading to discrimination even if unintended. The cases challenge the state's authority over school libraries and its impact on students' constitutional rights.

Thomas Story, the staff attorney of the ACLU of Iowa, contended that SF 496 was crafted with animus against LGBTQ+ students as an attempt to control opinions and thoughts, particularly related to transgender and non-heterosexual orientations.

Mike Beranek, the president of the Iowa State Education Association, emphasized that the recent hearing was crucial, stating that public school employees risk losing their careers over the law, which they claim violates the First Amendment's free speech clause and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Johnston asserted that the law is not vague. He argued that the state's involvement in school libraries aims to protect students from explicit content rather than suppressing ideas.

Story challenged this perspective during a news conference, arguing that if the government could dictate library content, it would violate the Constitution. Locher's inquiries during the court session included considerations of balancing student and parental concerns, the neutrality of the law's language, and whether remarks by legislators should influence the evaluation.

Locher acknowledged the law's seemingly neutral language but remarked on its peculiar nature. He emphasized his role in determining constitutionality, irrespective of personal opinions on the law's quality. 

RELATED ARTICLE: Iowa Book Ban: Publishers, Bestselling Authors Challenge State's New Law in Court