A federal appeals court decision on Monday cleared the way for enforcement of a state law that bans Iowa’s public schools from offering certain books and forms of instruction related to gender and sexual orientation.
Senate File 496, which was signed into law in 2023, included several provisions related to public schools, gender identity and sexuality. In two separate lawsuits, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an LGBTQ advocacy groups and a coalition of publishers took the state to court over the issue, arguing that some elements of the law violated individuals’ constitutional rights.
In 2025, a federal judge imposed a set of parallel, temporary injunctions that effectively blocked enforcement of those provisions while the two cases are being litigated.
In two separate decisions issued Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit vacated those injunctions and remanded both cases back to district court, where the underlying challenges as to the law’s legality can proceed toward trial.
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird called the decisions on the injunctions “a huge win” for Iowa parents.
“Parents should always know that school is a safe place for their children to learn, not be concerned they are being indoctrinated with inappropriate sexual materials and philosophies,” Bird said.
“This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end of this fight,” said Nathan Maxwell, senior attorney at Lambda Legal, one of the ACLU’s co-plaintiffs. “Iowa’s SF 496 is a cruel and unconstitutional law that silences LGBTQ+ children, erases their existence from classrooms and forces educators to expose vulnerable students to potential harm at home. We will continue to use every legal tool available to protect these young people. They deserve nothing less.”
The school-library issue
In the first of the two cases, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins Publishers and other publishers and authors sued over the provisions of the law that dealt specifically with the availability of materials in a school library.
In December 2023, the district court had entered a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the provision requiring the removal of books containing “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” from Iowa public school libraries.
That decision was based on the conclusion there was no single standard of scrutiny that’s applicable to restrictions on First Amendment rights in the school setting, and so the court relied on obscenity standards as applied in past cases and examined the issue of whether there is a “substantial and reasonable government interest” in restricting the availability of certain materials in school libraries.
The district court concluded the publishers were likely to prevail in establishing an unconstitutional application of the new law. In doing so, it rejected the application of another standard – called “the Hazelwood standard” — set forth in another case that concluded such restrictions on books are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The court acknowledged that if the Hazelwood standard were to be applied, schools or a state legislature could categorically prohibit sexual content or profanity in school libraries without running afoul of the First Amendment.
The key issue in the Hazelwood standard was whether certain school activities, such as a library, “may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum.”
In its decision on Monday, the appeals court panel noted that “the removal of a book from a school library does not prevent a student from ‘receiving’ the information from other sources, adding that “the First Amendment does not guarantee students the right to access books of their choosing at taxpayer expense.”
On the issue of the Hazelwood standard and the question of whether a book’s mere presence in a school library can fairly be viewed as part a school’s curriculum, the panel stated that “it is indisputable that the purposes of a school library are to enhance education, supplement classroom learning and facilitate the development of students’ knowledge and skills. A school library is curated by school officials, educators, librarians or perhaps some combination of these people. It is supervised by educators and librarians. Given these aspects, under Hazelwood, a school library bears the imprimatur of the school and is properly characterized as part of the school’s curriculum.”
The gender-identity issue
In the second lawsuit, Iowa Safe Schools, an organization that was formerly known as the GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force, sued the state over provisions in the 2023 law that bars school districts 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.”
The law also requires school officials to notify parents if a student asks for the use of a pronoun that does not match the school’s registration records, or the student requests an “accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity.”
In that case, the plaintiffs argued the provisions of the law were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The state argued the statute applies only to mandatory parts of the educational curriculum – as opposed to extracurricular activities.
The district court had ruled that the provision appeared to be an attempt to bar any programs or promotions relating to any gender identity or any sexual orientation, which also would include “girls” sports teams and “boys” sports teams.
The appeals court panel — consisting of the same three judges who ruled in the parallel case brought by the publishers — said Monday it “cannot say the state’s assertion” as to the law’s intent is wrong. “We think the plain language speaks clearly enough to apply to classroom curriculum,” the panel said.
As for parental notification of a student’s request for gender-preference accommodations, the panel found that the district court erred in concluding that law’s reference to “accommodations” was too vague. “Even though the statute does not define accommodation,’ it is not vague,” the panel ruled. “The law is clear enough that a person of ordinary intelligence can reasonably understand it.”
