When Iowa students return to school later this month, they may notice books, including important works of literature, have disappeared from library shelves, and younger students will find certain topics can no longer be discussed in their classrooms. That’s because on Friday, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the preliminary injunction stopping parts of SF 496 from being enforced.
SF 496 is a wide-ranging education bill that was pushed through the Iowa Legislature with only Republican votes during the 2023 legislative session. Among its other provisions, the bill mandated public school districts to remove all books with “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” except for approved science or health class texts. It also prohibits “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion or instruction” that references sexual orientation or gender identity in K-6 classes, and forbids all teachers and other school personnel from using a student’s preferred name or pronouns without written permission from parents if they are “different than the name or pronoun assigned to the student in the school district’s registration forms or records.”
When SF 496 was being debated in the Iowa Legislature, educators and mental health experts warned that this last provision might force vulnerable trans and nonbinary students to come out to their families before they are ready, or hide their identities from teachers and school counselors they trust.
During debate on the book-banning provision of SF 496, Republican lawmakers focused on LGBTQ-themed books, calling them everything from inappropriate to pornographic, but finally settled on the broad language regarding sex in books. But the final version of the bill contained the broader ban on any book with “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act,” which is more likely to survive a court challenge. After it was pointed out that SF 496 could result in the Bible being removed from school libraries, Republicans added an exemption for the Bible and other religious texts.
The wide scope of the book ban created confusion for school districts, especially after the Iowa Department of Education declined to provide guidance about how to implement it, saying instead the department would review complaints demanding certain books be banned in schools on a case-by-case basis.
The vague nature of the ban and the lack of official guidance led many school districts to pull a broad swath of books. For example, last October the Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) released a list of 68 titles it had removed from schools. That list included landmark works of literature (Ulysses by James Joyce), books so embedded in contemporary culture that everyone knows their name (The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, as well as the graphic novel adaptation of the book by Renee Nault) and an essential work by Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison, The Bluest Eye. Nonfiction works such as Iris Chang’s, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, and the essay collection Not that Bad: Dispatches from Rape Culture were also on the list of books removed in response to SF 496.
SF 496 had been scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2024, but last year on Nov. 28, the ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of those provisions of SF 496 on behalf of seven students and Iowa Safe Schools. Two days after that lawsuit was filed, attorneys representing the Iowa State Education Association and Penguin Random House filed another lawsuit in federal court challenging SF 496’s book ban.
Federal District Court Judge Stephen Locher decided to combine the two challenges and held a hearing on them on Dec. 22. Five days later he issued a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of the book ban and the prohibition on any instruction or materials related to sexual identity or gender orientation. The judge did allow the provision requiring written permission from parents before using a student’s preferred name or pronouns, if they do not match school records, to go into effect.
In his ruling, Locher found the book ban was so “incredibly broad” it likely violates the First Amendment.
“Indeed, the court has been unable to locate a single case upholding the constitutionality of a school library restriction even remotely similar to Senate File 496,” he wrote.
He held that the prohibition on any instruction or materials mentioning sexual identity or gender orientation was “wildly overbroad,” and likely to be struck down as unconstitutional.
The injunction allowed districts like ICCSD to return the books they had pulled from schools and continue K-6 education without the new content restrictions.
In its decision on Friday, the appeals panel for the 8th Circuit said that Locher erred when he found those provisions of SF 496 likely to be unconstitutional. As part of its order lifting the injunction, the panel sent the combined cases back to the district court with instructions for the judge to use the four-part test on the constitutionality of speech restrictions created by the U.S. Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice.
Locher could not have relied on Moody v. NetChoice when he issued the injunction last December, because the Supreme Court only announced its decision in that case six weeks ago.
On Friday afternoon, the governor’s office issued a two-sentence statement hailing the appeals court decision on Friday.
“Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit confirmed what we already knew – it should be parents who decide when and if sexually-explicit books are appropriate for their children. Here in Iowa, we will continue to focus on excellence in education and partnerships with parents and educators.”
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird also issued a statement, declaring that with the lifted injunction means “parents will no longer have to fear what their kids have access to in schools when they are not around.”
“If Iowa’s elected leaders truly valued education professionals, they would leave important classroom decisions to the local school districts and the experts who work in them – not make what we teach our students a game of political football,” the Iowa State Education Association President Joshua Brown said in a statement on the ruling.
The 8th Circuit’s order was issued just two weeks before the start of the 2024-25 school year for some districts, reintroducing the uncertainty local school officials experienced at the start of the 2023-24 school year.
“Today’s ruling once again places the district in a state of flux,” ICCSD Superintendent Matt Degner said in an email to district families on Friday. “We are working with legal counsel to ensure we have a complete and accurate understanding of the impact of today’s ruling, and we are committed to complying with Iowa law. We will provide guidance to schools that aligns with today’s ruling, and provide the community an update, prior to the start of school.”
“Please know that our commitment to compliance with state law, and the possible need to once again modify certain aspects of our programming, will not deter us from our dedication to our students’ well-being and to creating inclusive learning environments.”
The ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal issued a joint statement about the appeals court decision.
“Iowa families, and especially LGBTQ+ students who will again face bullying, intimidation, and censorship as they return for a new school year, are deeply frustrated and disappointed by this delay,” they said. “Denying LGBTQ+ youth the chance to see themselves represented in classrooms and books sends a harmful message of shame and stigma that should not exist in schools.”
The ACLU and Lambda Legal noted that court’s decision did contain some positive elements for their case, including “the complete rejection of the State’s most dangerous arguments.”
“The appeals court acknowledged that our student clients have been harmed by the law and have the right to bring suit,” they wrote. “The court also rejected the State’s claim that banning books in libraries is a form of protected government speech.”
The groups are now preparing for the next hearing in district court, which has not yet been scheduled.
“We will ask the district court to block the law again at the earliest opportunity,” they said.
