A federal judge has blocked parts of Iowa’s LGBTQ instruction ban but has upheld other sections.
Thursday's ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher, concerns two provisions within Iowa Senate File 496: a ban on K-6 instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation, and mandated parental notification when a student requests accommodations for their gender identity.
Locher struck down a separate provision banning books with sexual acts earlier this March.
The newest order continues the two-year back-and-forth over an Iowa law passed in 2023. Locher blocked the law in December 2023 but was overturned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2024.
Teachers can say gay, but only in a neutral way
Locher upheld the K-6 ban on gender identity and sexual orientation instruction for mandatory parts of the curriculum. But schools are not allowed to restrict LGBTQ topics from extracurricular activities, like Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs).
“It does not matter whether the lessons or instruction revolve around cisgender or transgender identities or straight or gay sexual orientations. All are forbidden,” Locher wrote in the opinion.
State defendants had argued that the provision would be “absurdly interpreted” if it banned schools from dividing sports teams by gender identity. Locher rebuked their argument, saying if that were the case, then the Iowa Legislature only intended the law to restrict some types of speech around gender identity — meaning the law would be discriminatory.
Educators are allowed to mention these topics if they come up, for example, if a gay character appeared in a book, but the educator would need to steer the conversation away from sexual orientation.
But in a previous hearing, Locher said that just by having a character with same-sex parents, a book could imply that such a relationship would be accepted, which would not be a neutral viewpoint.
“What the court is noting is that kids are going to ask questions, and teachers have to be allowed to answer them, whether they're in class or not,” said ACLU attorney Thomas Story.
The line between answering a question and instructing on the topic is hazy. Locher cautioned against enforcing the law against teachers who are trying to respond to a student’s curiosity.
Story expects these remaining conflicts to be resolved as the lawsuit continues.
Parents are only notified if a student asks to change their pronouns
The parental notification provision, referred to some as the “forced outing” provision, was mostly struck down for being too broad.
Locher wrote that the word “accommodation” was not properly defined, especially one intended to affirm gender identity. He posed a series of hypotheticals: would it be an accommodation to let a girl sit with the boys at lunch? Or to let a boy write about female historical figures?
The one clause that was allowed to stand was a specific example of an accommodation: if a student requests to use pronouns different from their registration form, that would trigger the notification provision.
