Iowa ACLU sends letters to cities calling for removal of drag restrictions
The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa sent letters Wednesday to five Iowa city councils calling for a change to local statutes that classify 'female impersonators' and 'male impersonators' as adult entertainment, saying such measures are unconstitutional.
The letters were sent to the city councils of Carroll, Harlan, Mt. Pleasant, Polk City and Webster City. The five Iowa municipalities have restrictions on performances — typically referring to drag shows — as adult entertainment. In the letters to the city councils, ACLU Staff Attorney Shefali Aurora wrote that the prohibitions on drag performances violate the state and U.S. constitutions, as they conflict with the First Amendment by restricting a form of expression that's protected under free speech rights.
Aurora also argued the ordinances violate constitutional equal protection rights, as the measures target the LGBTQ community on the basis of sex and gender expression.
Aurora said in a news conference Wednesday the ordinances are restricting performances that are neither obscene or sexual.
'Not all drag is obscenity,' Aurora said. 'A lot of drag performances are, in fact, family friendly. Too often, drag is equated with sexualized performances. But drag is not, by definition, adult entertainment. It can simply be someone wearing clothing and accessories conventionally worn by a person of a different gender.'
Other performances that entail stories involving a person dressed in a manner that does not traditionally correspond with their gender at birth — such as movies like 'Mulan' or 'Mrs. Doubtfire' — could be restricted from being shown under such local ordinances.
A statewide measure to ban minors' attendance at drag performances was discussed during the 2025 legislative session but ultimately did not advance. This proposed legislation contained similar language that defined drag as performances where the main aspect is 'a performer who exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth through the use of clothing, makeup, accessories, or other gender signifiers.'
The bill, which was amended, received heavy criticism not just for limiting family-friendly drag shows but potentially impacting transgender people's ability to be in non-drag public performances and preventing local theaters from performing classic art such as Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night,' as it contains a character that dresses as the opposite gender.
Aurora said this is not the first time the ACLU has sent letters to local governments about similar anti-drag ordinances. In the past, the organization has contacted Eagle Grove, Knoxville, Newton, Dyersville, Pella, Waukee and Grinnell — communities that agreed to amend their ordinances after receiving communications from the ACLU on the issue.
In 2021, Doña Martha's Office in Eagle Grove had canceled a drag show after receiving a letter from the city attorney that called for the performances to cease, claiming they violated municipal code. Aurora said Eagle Grove later agreed to amend the restriction on 'female impersonators' as part of the city's definition of adult entertainment.
While the ACLU is encouraging all cities to review their ordinances and remove language related to drag performances as inherently obscene, Aurora said the latest letters were sent as many Iowa communities are celebrating Pride month, holding events that sometimes host drag performances.
'We thought it was particularly important to raise this issue again this month, with it being Pride, which is why we're sending out the letters this week, just to bring that to the forefront,' Aurora said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Does Melania Trump's $1B Lawsuit Threat Against Hunter Biden Have Merit?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Legal analysts weighed in on whether first lady Melania Trump's billion-dollar defamation lawsuit threat against Hunter Biden has merit. Why It Matters Trump threatened to file a lawsuit against Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, accusing him of making "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements" during an interview in which he claimed Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to her husband, President Donald Trump. If she follows through with that threat, the case could test the limits of defamation law involving high-profile individuals such as the first family. The Trump administration has been under scrutiny over its handling of a trove of documents and files related to Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in a New York federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking. There have long been rumors of an Epstein "client list," and Trump campaigned on greater transparency on the case. However, Trump's Justice Department has not released those files, fueling political backlash against him. What To Know Hunter Biden made those claims about Melania Trump during an interview with journalist Andrew Callaghan earlier this month, citing an article from The Daily Beast based on claims by Trump biographer Michael Wolff. The Daily Beast retracted that story after receiving a letter from the first lady's lawyer challenging its headline and framing. Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent the letter to Hunter Biden and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, on August 6, 2025, reported Fox News Digital. He said Biden's comments are "extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums." First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, 2024. First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, an interview with Callaghan on Thursday, Biden declined to apologize, saying, "F*** that. That's not going to happen." Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that in theory, Melania Trump has a "strong case against Hunter Biden" if his statement was indeed false. "As a public figure, the first lady would have to prove malice, that the younger Biden knew the statement was false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. But if Epstein did not introduce the president and first lady, that would not be difficult to prove," Rahmani said. If the first lady files the lawsuit, Biden would likely raise First Amendment arguments, including that political speech receives strong free speech protections. Practically speaking, however, Rahmani said he does not believe Melania Trump will file. If she does, she and her lawyers may look for a quick settlement. "The president has been very litigious when it comes to these types of cases, but truth is an absolute defense to defamation. A civil complaint puts how Donald and Melania met and their relationship with Epstein, if any, at issue," Rahmani said. "That means the president and first lady would have to sit for a deposition and answer questions about Epstein. Hunter may dig in his heels and push the case to trial or the brink, like he did with his criminal cases." A trial about the Trumps and Epstein would be a "circus," and no one wants to be associated with Epstein, Rahmani said. However, former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu said he believes Melania Trump does not have a strong case against Hunter Biden. "It's pretty tough for a public figure like a first lady to be able to claim defamation," Wu said. The case could also be difficult to prove because the statements originate from Wolff's book, he said. She would not only have to prove that the claim is false, but that Hunter Biden knew or should have known it was false. "It would be different if he was the only person starting this rumor or something, but given that there's been other people—it may be factually inaccurate, but there are other sources publicly available—it becomes more of a defamation suit based on the idea you're not allowed to reference other publicly reported stories," Wu said. He added that a defamation trial would not "be very helpful at all" to the scrutiny the Trump administration has faced over Epstein. What People Are Saying Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, wrote in his notice to Hunter Biden: "Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer." Hunter Biden said on Channel Five: "What I said was what I have heard and seen reported and written, primarily from Michael Wolff, but also dating back all the way to 2019 when The New York Times, I think, Annie Carney and Maggie Haberman reported that sources said that Jeffrey Epstein claimed to be the person to introduce Donald Trump to Melania at that time. "And then I think excerpted in a book that was published in Vanity Fair, and I think it's been repeated by journalists and authors since then. But the primary source was the interviews that Michael Wolff has been conducting, in which he has, actually, tapes of I think hours and hours of interviews with Jeffrey Epstein. So, you know, fact of the matter is that, you know, I don't think that these threats of a lawsuit add up to anything other than a design destruction because it's not about who introduced whom to who. I don't know how that in any way rises to the level of defamation to begin with." Nick Clemmens, an aide to Melania Trump, previously told Newsweek: "First lady Melania Trump's attorneys are actively ensuring immediate retractions and apologies by those who spread malicious, defamatory falsehoods. The true account of how the first lady met President Trump is in her best-selling book, Melania." What Happens Next Whether Melania Trump will end up filing the lawsuit against Hunter Biden is yet to be seen. If so, it would garner significant attention while testing the First Amendment and defamation law.


Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Mississippi Allowed to Require Age Verification for Social Media—For Now
The Supreme Court will allow Mississippi to enforce a law requiring social media sites verify the age of users or receive parental consent as it awaits a legal challenge—but Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed skeptical the law is constitutional. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the law would 'likely' violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. Getty Images This is a breaking story and will be updated.


San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court allows enforcement of Mississippi social media age verification law
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday refused for now to block enforcement of a Mississippi law aimed at regulating the use of social media by children, an issue of growing national concern. The justices rejected an emergency appeal from a tech industry group, NetChoice, that is challenging laws passed in Mississippi and other states that require social media users to verify their ages. The court had been asked to keep the law on hold while a lawsuit plays out. There were no noted dissents from the brief, unsigned order. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote to say that NetChoice could eventually succeed in showing that the law is indeed unconstitutional. Kavanaugh said he nevertheless agreed with the court's decision because the tech group had not shown it would suffer legal harm if the measure went into effect as the lawsuit unfolded. NetChoice argues that the Mississippi law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages. A federal judge agreed and prevented the 2024 law from taking effect. But a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in July that the law could be enforced while the lawsuit proceeds. It's the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country. Parents and even some teenagers are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the new laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch told the justices that age verification could help protect young people from 'sexual abuse, trafficking, physical violence, sextortion, and more,' activities that Fitch noted are not protected by the First Amendment. NetChoice represents some of the country's most high-profile technology companies, including Google, which owns YouTube; Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat; and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.