Court again blocks key elements of Iowa's school book ban
A federal judge has again temporarily blocked portions of an Iowa law restricting school books with sexual content. (Photo by)
A federal judge has again temporarily blocked portions of an Iowa law aimed at restricting schools' recognition of LGBTQ+ people and banning books with sexual or LGBTQ+ content.
The law, which was signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in May 2023, was immediately challenged by Lambda Legal and ACLU of Iowa on behalf of students, teachers and the organization Iowa Safe Schools.
As originally written, the law prohibits school districts and educators from providing 'any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The court had previously enjoined the law because the terms 'gender identity' and 'sexual orientation' were defined so broadly as to make it impossible for a reasonable school district, teacher, or student to understand what, exactly, was prohibited.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's injunction and remanded the case with instructions to the district court to address the legality of a narrower interpretation of the law.
Thursday's preliminary injunction reflects the district court's conclusion that there are parts of the law that do pass constitutional muster, but only under such a narrow interpretation.
'The restrictions on 'programs' and 'promotion' relating to gender identity and sexual orientation cannot reasonably be interpreted in a manner consistent with the First Amendment,' U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher ruled. 'The words 'program' and 'promotion' are simply too broad to refer only to mandatory classroom curriculum and instead prohibit school districts and educators from, among other things, making extracurricular activities relating to gender identity and sexual orientation available to students in grade 6 or below. These restrictions therefore violate students' First Amendment rights and are facially unconstitutional.'
In his ruling, Locher set out what precisely what portions of the law are, and are not, enforceable:
— Detailed instruction banned: School districts and educators may not provide mandatory lessons or instruction to students in grade 6 or below that include detailed explanations or normative views on 'gender identity' or 'sexual orientation.'
— Neutral references allowed: School districts and teachers may provide mandatory lessons or instruction to students in grade 6 or below that contain neutral references to gender identity or sexual orientation. The lessons and instruction simply cannot focus on those topics. Teachers may make other neutral references to any gender identity and any sexual orientation during classroom instruction — for example, by referring to their partner even if the individual is of the same sex.
— Student groups allowed: Students in grades 6 and below must be allowed to join Gender Sexuality Alliances, or GSAs, and other student groups related to gender identity and/or sexual orientation.
— Promotion of student groups allowed: School districts and educators must be permitted to advertise GSAs and other student groups that relate to gender identity or sexual orientation to all students, including those in grade six and below, to the same degree as they might promote any other student group.
— Parental notification allowed in some cases: State officials and school districts may inform parents when a student asks for an accommodation in the form of a pronoun that's at odds with their gender listed in school records, but they may not do so to any other student requests for an accommodation.
'We're pleased that our clients, Iowa families and students, can look forward to the next school year without facing the harms of this unconstitutional law,' said Nathan Maxwell, senior attorney at Lambda Legal. 'This ruling acknowledges that Iowa students and teachers have experienced real harm from this law. The court agreed with us that the latitude afforded the state to determine school curricula does not empower lawmakers to erase any mention of LGBTQ+ people altogether from schools, nor to put students in harm's way for failing to meet ambiguous and arbitrary standards for gender expression. Lastly, the court here makes it clear, yet again, that banning books with LGBTQ+ content or censoring inclusive messages for LGBTQ+ students is unacceptable.'
'This is an important win for our clients and others harmed by this overreaching law,' said Thomas Story, ACLU of Iowa staff attorney. 'The federal district court has blocked the state from enforcing many of the worst aspects of Senate File 496. Under this order, Iowa teachers no longer can be disciplined simply because their classroom contains a Pride flag or their library contains books with LGBTQ+ characters. Students of all ages are once again free to join GSAs and to promote them to their classmates.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events
Digging deep into free-speech precedents in recent American history, a federal appeals panel handed The Associated Press an incremental loss on Friday in its continuing battle with the Trump administration over access by its journalists to cover presidential events. By a 2-1 margin, judges on the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington granted Trump a stay in enforcement of a lower-court ruling that the administration had improperly punished the AP for the content of its speech — in this case not renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's liking. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. The decision itself was aimed only at whether to continue the stay. But the majority and dissenting opinions together totaled 55 pages and delved deeply into First Amendment precedents and questions about whether places like the Oval Office and Air Force One were, in effect, private spaces. Trump posted about the decision on the Truth Social platform shortly after the decision: 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the defendants in the AP's lawsuit, posted on X after the decision came down that it was a 'VICTORY!' and would allow more media to access the president beyond the 'failing legacy media.' She added: 'And by the way, @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' An AP spokesman said that 'we are disappointed in the court's decisions and are reviewing our options.' One possibility is seeking an expedited review of the full case on its merits. President given wide latitude by court majority Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao agreed in Friday's ruling with Trump's assertion that it's up to the president to decide who gets into spaces like the Oval Office — and he can take into account the viewpoint of journalists he allows. That's related to AP's assertion that the ban amounts to a legal principle known as 'viewpoint discrimination.' 'If the president sits down for an interview with (Fox News') Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with (MSNBC's) Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' In deciding on a stay, the judges considered the likelihood of which side would win the case when Trump's full appeal is taken up, probably not for a few months. In that situation, a different panel of appeals court judges will hear it. Katsas and Rao were both appointed to the federal court by Trump in his first term. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, who dissented on Friday, was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Pillard wrote that there's no principled basis for exempting the Oval Office from a requirement that a president not engage in viewpoint discrimination. There's nothing to stop the majority's reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole, she wrote. In that case, it's not hard to see future Republican White Houses limiting the press covering them to the likes of Fox News, and Democrats to MSNBC, she wrote. 'More to the point, if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike,' Pillard wrote. The bumpiness between Trump and the press is longstanding Since the original ruling, the White House has installed a rotation system for access to small events. AP photographers are usually included, but text reporters are allowed in much less frequently. A study earlier this year showed Trump has spoken to the press more often in the first 100 days of his administration than any of his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. But he's much more likely to speak to a small group of reporters called into the Oval Office than at a formal briefing or press conference — to which AP journalists have been admitted. Through Leavitt, the White House has opened up to many more conservative news outlets with a friendly attitude toward the president. In her dissent, Pillard rejected the assertion by the White House and her colleagues that the president suffers damage if news outlets not aligned with his views are permitted into certain restricted spaces to watch the government function. The majority though, insisted that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has wide latitude in that respect. Wrote Rao: 'The Oval Office is the President's office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press.'
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Appeals court allows White House AP ban to continue
A panel of judges from a U.S. federal appeals court on Friday said parts of the White House's ban on the Associated Press could remain, dealing a devastating blow to the AP. Why it matters: Press freedom advocates are closely watching the AP's case for any precedents it could set around free speech protections for journalists. What they're saying: In a statement, the AP said, "We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the ruling a victory in a post on X. "As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations," she wrote. Catch up quick: The AP sued three Trump administration officials in late February for blocking its reporters from events like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, citing a violation of its First Amendment rights. The White House said it barred the AP for refusing to change the term "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" in its journalism. The AP said it didn't make the change so as not to cause confusion amongst its global readership. A judge rejected the Associated Press' emergency motion to rescind the White House ban shortly after he sought more details on the circumstances surrounding the case. In April, a federal judge sided with the Associated Press, declaring that under the First Amendment, the government can't bar journalists from certain government events because of their viewpoints. The Trump administration appealed the federal judge's ruling shortly thereafter. How it works: The recent decision allows most of the White House's ban of the AP to go back into effect while the case is still litigated. The White House barred AP reporters from presidential spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One. The panel of three judges — two of which were Trump appointees — ruled that those spaces aren't subject to First Amendment protections, but allowed a lower court ruling that said the White House must allow access to larger spaces, like the East Room, to the AP.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets Trump block AP from some White House spaces for now
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration may ban The Associated Press from the Oval Office and other limited spaces for now, pausing a judge's order to return the wire service's access. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden's April 8 order deeming unlawful AP's exile from the press pool, a small group of journalists who document the president's movements and statements in and around the White House. The White House's exclusion of AP stemmed from the outlet's refusal to use the term Gulf of America in its popular stylebook. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Gregory Katsas, both appointees of President Trump. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' The judges said that, without a stay, the government would suffer irreparable harm because the injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' McFadden, also a Trump appointee, ordered the Trump administration to reinstate AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other small spaces that hold a limited number of officials and journalists. The AP's spot in the president's press pool has traditionally been secured daily, both at the White House and when the president is traveling. Its reporters are usually granted access in a tradition dating back decades. 'The AP and the district court again lean heavily on the history of the press pool as an institution,' Rao wrote. 'But the AP cannot adversely possess a seat in the Oval Office, no matter how long its tradition of access.' The panel did not pause the portion of McFadden's order restoring AP's access to the East Room, noting that it does not share the 'hallmarks' of spaces like the Oval Office. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard said that participation in the press pool or broader White House press corps has never been conditioned on a news organization's viewpoint 'until now.' 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' the Obama appointee wrote. The Justice Department had argued that the spaces from which the White House sought to exclude the AP are not a press facility like the Brady Press Briefing Room and are intended for the president's personal use. Plus, presidents have the 'personal autonomy' to decide to whom they reveal their minds. Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, argued that the White House can't single out an outlet for exclusion from the pool based solely on its viewpoints, though he acknowledged that it's the president's prerogative to revoke AP's daily spot in the press pool. After McFadden ruled in the AP's favor, the White House removed the spot typically reserved for wire services from the press pool, instead making those outlets eligible for selection as part of the pool's daily print-journalist rotation. Patrick Maks, a spokesperson for AP, said in a statement, 'we are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The Hill requested comment from the White House. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
