On June 11, attorneys for LGBTQ+ youth, teachers, and major publishers came before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota, to uphold a lower court ruling that had blocked significant parts of an Iowa law passed in 2023.

The law, SF 496, championed by Iowa's Republican-led Legislature and Governor Kim Reynolds, aimed to prohibit the presence of books in school libraries and classrooms that depict sex acts and prevent discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation by teachers with younger students.

Legal Battle Over Iowa Law

The law initially caused the removal of many books from Iowa schools and disbanded extracurricular clubs focused on LGBTQ+ issues, as well as removing pride flags from classrooms. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that these actions restricted free expression, compelling LGBTQ+ students to self-censor their identities.

Plaintiffs, including the Iowa Safe Schools, seven students, and groups like the ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal argued that the law was overly broad and unconstitutional. They stated that the law sought to suppress LGBTQ+ voices and eliminate their visibility in school settings, thereby infringing on students' rights to varied viewpoints and freedom of expression.

On the other hand, Iowa's attorneys upheld the law's constitutionality by emphasizing the state's obligation to protect minors from unsuitable material and ensure education suitable for their age. They justified the removal of books depicting or discussing "sex acts" from school libraries on these grounds.

READ ALSO: Florida County School Board Bans Book on Book Bans

Federal Judge Blocks Iowa Law's Provisions

Judge Stephen Locher criticized the law as excessively broad in a comprehensive 49-page opinion and order issued in late December. Locher's injunction specifically targeted the law's sweeping ban on books depicting sex acts, stating that such restrictions were unlikely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny. He pointed out that the law imposed a puritanical standard over school libraries without sufficient justification or evidence of significant harm caused by the books' content.

Locher also criticized the law as overbroad and vague, potentially allowing arbitrary enforcement and infringing on due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling underscored that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest justifying such broad censorship measures in schools. Instead, Locher emphasized that the law appeared to be a disproportionate response without clear evidence of widespread harm or problems caused by the contested books.

State Laws vs. Free Speech and LGBTQ+ Rights

The case before the appeals court highlighted broader implications. Similar laws have been enacted across the United States, typically by Republican lawmakers citing parental rights and child protection. These laws have sparked numerous legal challenges, often alleging infringement of free speech and LGBTQ+ rights.

Eric Wessan, Iowa's Solicitor General, argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law since it regulated school districts and their employees rather than students directly. He contended that the law's restrictions on school library materials constituted government speech, not private speech protected by the First Amendment.

In response, Frederick Sperling, representing Penguin Random House and other plaintiffs, urged the appeals court to affirm the lower court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional. He argued that the law's vague and overbroad provisions threatened free expression and educational freedom in public schools.

Judge James Loken raised concerns about the breadth of the challenge, suggesting that the court historically preferred narrower challenges to laws rather than facial challenges. He indicated that limited challenges could provide sufficient guidance to school districts regarding permissible actions under the law.

The hearing also addressed the contentious provision prohibiting instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation for students up to sixth grade, referred to by opponents as a "Don't Say Gay" law. While plaintiffs argued it restricted educators' speech, Iowa's attorneys maintained it applied solely to schools and had not resulted in student discipline.

Following oral arguments, the appeals panel took the case under advisement without specifying a timeline for its decision. The outcome of this case could establish a precedent for how educational rules, free speech, and LGBTQ+ rights are balanced in public schools.

RELATED ARTICLE: Iowa Book Ban Law Faces Setback as Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Enforcement Amid Legal Challenges