Latest news with #ACLUofIowa
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
ACLU of Iowa sues Reynolds over access to government records
(Photo by Getty Images) The ACLU of Iowa is suing Gov. Kim Reynolds in an effort to force the release of government records related to a decision to block The Satanic Temple of Iowa from staging an event at the Iowa State Capitol. The lawsuit was docketed in Polk County District Court on Tuesday, four days after Reynolds sought a court injunction that would block the Des Moines Register from accessing an entirely different set of records. The Register is seeking documents pertaining to allegations about the finances of Lutheran Social Services and its affiliates, but the governor's office has claimed the sought-after documents are covered by executive privilege and need not be disclosed. The ACLU case also involves a claim of executive privilege by Reynolds' office. The ACLU case stems from a June 2024 request by the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers for documents from the governor's office that are related to the State of Iowa's decision to cancel an Iowa Satanic Temple winter celebration in the rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The governor's office refused to produce all of the requested documents, citing executive privilege, even though, the ACLU argues, the documents in question are an executive agency report and documents related to media preparation. Some relevant materials were turned over, but much was redacted, according to the ACLU. 'At present, this claimed 'executive privilege' has no limit unless one is self-imposed by the governor's office,' the lawsuit states. 'This would, contrary to the purposes, goals, and express language of Iowa's Open Records Act, allow the governor's office to reject the public interest in favor of free and open examination of public records solely because of the potential for inconvenience or embarrassment.' In addition to Reynolds, the lawsuit names as a defendant Steven Blankinship, general counsel for governor. The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring that Reynolds has violated the Iowa Open Records Law, an order enjoining the governor's office from committing any future violations for one year, and an injunction requiring Reynolds to turn over the requested records. The governor's office has yet to file a response to the lawsuit, and her communications staff did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. It's not the first time the ACLU and Reynolds have clashed over access to information. In 2023, the ACLU of Iowa successfully sued Reynolds' office on behalf of Iowa Capital Dispatch and other media representatives and advocates for failing to respond in a timely fashion to journalists' requests for information about the state's response to COVID-19. The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Reynolds, and her office was ordered to comply in a timely manner to public record requests from journalists. The Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, or IAF, is a public interest group based in central Iowa that focuses on secular governance, the importance of science, separation of church and state, and a transparent and responsive government. Jason Benell, IAF's president, said the organization 'contends that it is in the interest of the public, regardless of their religious, economic, ethnic, or any other background, that our government be transparent and responsive to the needs of the governed… The governor's office has repeatedly refused to respect the rights of Iowans by unjustly and flagrantly asserting executive privilege in order to avoid accountability in matters of public interest.' Thomas Story, an ACLU of Iowa staff attorney, said the lawsuit is intended to challenge the governor's claim of 'an unprecedented 'executive privilege' to defy Iowa law. For more than half a century, the Iowa Open Records Act has ensured that the work of the state happens in the open. Now, the governor's office has decided it alone gets to decide what the public sees. The Iowa Constitution does not give it this authority.' Randy Evans, executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, said that as one of the plaintiffs in the 2023 lawsuit against Reynolds, the council is concerned that the refusal to turn over records concerning the planned Satanic Temple event at the Capitol was a 'continuation of the governor's desire to shield from public release documents that might cast her in a negative light.' Evans said the 'people of Iowa are entitled to evaluate their governor's actions. That becomes difficult when the governor tries to hide behind what should be a very narrow interpretation of executive privilege.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Battle over the legality of Iowa's school book ban heats up
(Photo by) A long-running legal battle over Iowa's school book ban took another turn Thursday with opponents and lawyers for the state arguing their case before a federal judge. Lawyers for a book publisher that is challenging the law called it a 'statewide, one-size-fits-all statute that eliminates discretion by school librarians,' while lawyers for the state characterized it as an appropriate and lawful attempt by lawmakers to control the materials publicly funded schools are offering their students. The law is part of Senate File 496, which was approved in May 2023, and includes provisions that ban, for grades K-12, virtually all books containing descriptions or depictions of a sex act. The bill also includes a provision that, for grades K-6, forbids 'curriculum' or 'instruction' that is related to gender identity or sexual orientation. The law was scheduled to go into effect in July 2023 with penalties for violations beginning in January 2024. Within months of the bill's passage, thousands of books were removed from Iowa school shelves, including 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' '1984,' and 'A Catcher in the Rye.' In November 2023, the ACLU of Iowa and the Lambda Legal Defense Educational Fund, representing Iowa Safe Schools, a nonprofit group that supports LGBTQ+ youth, filed a federal lawsuit against the state, seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the new law. Book publisher Penguin Random House and the Iowa State Education Association also filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction that would prevent enforcement of the book ban. In December 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher issued an injunction blocking some elements of the law. The state appealed that decision and in August 2024, a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Locher, directing him to reconsider the law's constitutionality in light of a recent First Amendment decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice. That case involved a lawsuit over speech on social media platforms. The ACLU and Lambda Legal then filed a renewed request for a preliminary injunction, as did Penguin Random House and the ISEA. On Thursday, attorneys for all parties in both cases argued their case before Judge Locher at the federal courthouse in Des Moines. During Thursday's hearing, Judge Locher observed that not all laws that are ill advised are unconstitutional, noting that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used to joke that federal judges should be given two stamps when ruling on new laws, with one stamp marked 'stupid,' and the other marked 'unconstitutional.' 'You can break out both stamps for this one, your honor,' said Thomas Story, attorney for the ACLU of Iowa, drawing laughter from lawyers on both sides of the case. A key argument by Frederick Sperling, attorney for Penguin Random House, was that the law is so vague and so open to interpretation — it doesn't distinguish between books that are appropriate for second-graders and those that are suitable for high school seniors, he said — that it has resulted in both constitutional and unconstitutional restrictions on books. Sperling noted that some books that would be subject to the ban are nonfiction historical works that include brief descriptions of sex acts within a much a larger, nonsexual context. 'These are important books for high school seniors,' Sperling said. 'They're not appropriate for third-graders.' Sperling argued that 'if there's a single sentence' in a book that describes a sex act, the book is 'pulled off the shelves' without regard to the context and without regard to whether it is made available to third-graders or to graduating seniors who are adults. 'You can't use a tool to unconstitutionally restrict free speech, even if you're also using that same tool to constitutionally restrict free speech,' he told the court. Asked by Locher whether he believes the state has the authority to control the actions or communications of the public schools, Sperling said 'the problem with the statute is that it takes away discretion by local school librarians.' In a brief filed with the court recently, Sperling argued the law 'unconstitutionally prohibits school librarians and other trained educators from considering the age of the potential reader and the value of each book as a whole.' William Admussen, representing the state, told the court a preliminary injunction wouldn't be appropriate in the case given the fact that it has been in effect for almost a year — albeit not continuously, due to the the various preceding court rulings. Story argued otherwise, noting that it's still unclear, even to the Iowa Department of Education, which books should be pulled from school shelves. He said the status quo is one of 'chaos and confusion,' which is one reason why an injunction would be appropriate. Locher indicated he was struggling with certain aspects of the case, particularly the fact that certain, brief descriptions of sex may appear to be salacious when read in isolation, but not when read as one element of a 300-page book. At one point, he asked whether the state feels a teacher can assign a book to a class if that book makes reference to a same-sex couple. Admussen indicated that if the reference was 'neutral,' and didn't endorse or advocate such a relationship, such a book would not be prohibited by the new law. Admussen said the book ban does not violate the First Amendment, and noted that higher courts have held that limitations on school-sponsored speech are constitutional if they are reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical purpose. Specifically, he said, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that school libraries are a form of school-sponsored speech. At the conclusion of Thursday's two-and-a-half-hour hearing, Locher told the parties he hopes to render a decision in the case 'as fast I can, but it probably won't be terribly fast,' noting that he's scheduled to preside over a trial next week.
