The appeals court heard arguments in two cases challenging the legality of Iowa’s Senate File 496, which bans books with sexual content in school libraries and restricts lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation in K-6 classrooms.
The law, passed in 2023, already faced setbacks, with federal rulings blocking enforcement of many of its provisions.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan represented the state in both cases before three judges of the Court of Appeals in St. Louis on Tuesday.
Wessan urged the panel to rule in favor of the state, citing prior legal precedent, including an appeals court ruling that vacated a lower court injunction allowing the law to take effect while the lower court considered First Amendment implications.
“This court found that Iowa's law was a viewpoint-neutral, content-based, age-appropriate restriction. It found that school libraries are intended to advance the curriculum of the school, and it found that Iowa is not required to have speech that undermines or is inconsistent with the goal of advancing the curriculum,” Wessan said.
The Iowa State Education Association, prominent publishers and authors challenged the law, arguing that the school library restrictions infringe on First Amendment rights. But Wessan pushed back.
“It's important to note that, despite some strong rhetoric, this is not a book ban. No student can be punished for bringing any book, even a prohibited book, into school,” Wessan said.
Fred Sperling, a lawyer representing Penguin Random House, argued that the law removes all discretion from local school districts.
“It applies the same standard to every grade, erasing the possibility for a librarian to weigh the value of a book as a whole,” Sperling said. “The unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh any constitutional ones.”
Sperling also claimed the law was too vague and confusing. After the Iowa Legislature approved the measure in May 2023, some school districts compiled lists and removed books to comply with the state’s order.
“Teachers and educators have been told to err on the side of caution. They risk losing both licensure and their employment itself,” Sperling added. “These books are not just books of fiction. They're books of anatomy, about biology. They're books about students, about authors who suffered sexual assault, and how they dealt with that. And these books are off the shelves for 12th graders, as well.”
Support for LGBTQ students
The judges questioned Sperling’s argument before turning to a second lawsuit contesting SF 496. It was filed by the ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal on behalf of students, families and Iowa Safe Schools, an organization supporting LGBTQ youth.
In May, a federal judge upheld a K-6 ban on instruction relating to gender identity and sexual orientation. But schools can’t restrict LGBTQ topics in student expression or extracurricular activities, such as gender-sexuality alliances (GSAs).
Wessan, again arguing on behalf of the state, said parents have a right to know what their children are doing in school.
“Parents play the most vital role in their children's lives, and a law that requires teachers or administrators to notify parents about what's going on in their students' lives should be generally seen as appropriate,” Wessan said.
ACLU of Iowa Attorney Thomas Story told the court the law is too vague for teachers to follow.
“It is interfering with their ability to do their job at all because they don't know what it requires, and it's causing schools to interfere with the activities of students,” Story said.
During a news conference with reporters after the hearing, Story said he didn’t want to speculate on the potential outcome but vowed to continue the case if needed.
“I can tell you that we will never stop fighting for the rights of Iowa students and for the rights of Iowa teachers and for the rights of everybody to be subject to laws that have clear standards and not be subject to the arbitrary decision-making of elected officials,” Story said.
He reiterated that he felt the law was too ambiguous for enforcement.
“They failed to give teachers and students any clear rules, and because they unconstitutionally infringe upon LGBTQ students' rights to express themselves and to join together in GSAs.”
