Iowa’s New Book Ban/Anti-LGBTQ Law Mostly Dead Following Federal Court Injunction
If you love to irrationally hate, you'll hate this. The Iowa legislature recently shat out a bill that allowed the state to start punishing people for not being straight and/or white. It was signed into law by another hateful person, Governor Kim Reynolds - the head of (this) state that recently made it clear she's willing to starve her state's children to own the libs. I am not even kidding.
Iowa will not participate this summer in a federal program that gives $40 per month to each child in a low-income family to help with food costs while school is out, state officials have announced.
The state has notified the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it will not participate in the 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children - or Summer EBT - program, the state's Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Educationsaidin a Friday news release.
Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don't provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic," Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in the news release.
Yeah... that's how Iowa's being run right now - by someone who thinks giving people $40/month for food will somehow contribute to childhood obesity. If that doesn't make you vomit in your mouth a little and/or feel a bit stabby, I don't know what to tell you.
Anyway, the law went into effect and immediately became the subject of two lawsuits. The first lawsuit was filed by concerned parents, students, and the GLBT Youth in Iowa Task Force. Easy enough to ignore, I suppose. The second lawsuit, however, featured a very heavy hitter in the list of plaintiffs: publishing heavyweight Penguin Random House. And that wasn't the only powerful player in this litigation market. The other major plaintiff was the Iowa State Education Association, the union representing the state's educators.
Codifying hate is always an option. But it's rarely a constitutional option. And such is the case here, with this law neatly summarized by Courthouse News Service in its coverage of the ensuing lawsuits.
Among other things, the new law requires public school districts to ban books and materials containing descriptions or depictions of sex acts" from all Iowa school libraries except for certain religious texts, such as the Bible, and forbids mention of sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through the sixth grade, in or outside of the classroom. And, the law requires teachers, counselors, and other school staff to report to parents if a student asks to be referred to by names or pronouns that align with their gender identity.
When a law is already this shitty, any summary that begins with among other things" makes it clear the other things" aren't any better than what's contained in the summary. Here's what the lawsuit filed by Penguin Random House had to say about just the book ban:
First, under the pretext of protecting students from pornography," Senate File 496 prohibits books in school libraries and classroom collections that contain a description or visual depiction of a sex act." This restriction applies to all grades, kindergarten through twelfth grade, without consideration of the book as a whole, only excepting religious books. By so broadly regulating the display and availability of books that are constitutionally protected as to at least a significant number of students, this standard violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is an impermissible content-based restriction, restricts access to constitutionally protected books, and is unconstitutionally vague.
Second, a portion of Senate File 496 also appears, and is being interpreted by Iowa school districts, to prohibit books in school libraries and classroom collections that relate" to gender identity" or sexual orientation." This sweeping prohibition defines gender identity and sexual orientation so broadly that the prohibition could apply to all gender identities and any depiction of a romantic relationship. This prohibition violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is an impermissible content-based restriction and is unconstitutionally vague. In practice this prohibition appears to have been intended to apply, and has been applied, to remove only books containing LGBTQ+ themes or characters or those written by authors within the LGBTQ+ community. Therefore, this prohibition also violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it discriminates against LGBTQ+ viewpoints and authors.
As I stated then, this law would never survive a constitutional challenge. The only thing left unanswered was how long it would take before a court blocked its enforcement.
We now have that answer: not long. Roughly a month after the lawsuits' arrival in court, a decision has been handed down that blocks the law from being enforced (for the most part). (h/t NBC News for the update, but I'll be deducting points because the broadcasting giant couldn't be bothered to post a copy of the decision.)
The injunction order [PDF] consolidates both lawsuits to give both sets of plaintiffs the same answer: the law is not only bad, it's unconstitutional.
The state loses badly here. Pretty much every aspect of the law violates the Constitution. The book ban fares the worst, with the court noting it has never before encountered such a broad attack on First Amendment rights. (All emphasis mine.)
As to the book restrictions, the Court GRANTS the Motions for Preliminary Injunction and ENJOINS the enforcement of Senate File 496. The law is incredibly broad and has resulted in the removal of hundreds of books from school libraries, including, among others, nonfiction history books, classic works of fiction, Pulitzer Prize winning contemporary novels, books that regularly appear on Advanced Placement exams, and even books designed to help students avoid being victimized by sexual assault. The sweeping restrictions in Senate File 496 are unlikely to satisfy the First Amendment under any standard of scrutiny and thus may not be enforced while the case is pending. Indeed, the Court has been unable to locate a single case upholding the constitutionality of a school library restriction even remotely similar to Senate File 496.
TL;DR: Do NOT be coming here with this bullshit. The book ban is benchslapped so hard, state legislators' kids will be wearing Judge Stephen Locher's handprints for weeks to come. (h/t Popehat, whom I'm pretty sure I stole that imagery from.)
That takes care of the book ban, which will never be allowed to be enforced ever... at least not in this nation.
As for the rest of the law? Well, that doesn't go much better for the state, Governor, and the hideous lawmakers who thought this could actually be a law. It starts out sounding like a win for these hateful people who don't deserve to be paid by the public...
First, nothing in the law restricts the ability of school districts, teachers, or other professionals to provide programs, promotion, and/or instruction of gender identity and sexual orientation to students in grade seven and above. School districts instead have full freedom to offer gay straight alliances (GSAs") or similar clubs that provide resources and support for LGBTQ+ students in grades seven and above. Teachers and other licensed professionals are not restricted in any way from serving as advisors for such GSAs, displaying rainbow flags, providing instruction on gay and transgender rights, and otherwise performing their responsibilities in a manner that emphasizes inclusiveness and respect for LGBTQ+ students in grades seven and above.
At first blush, it sounds like a possible win for the legislators who crafted a law meant to diminish the rights of certain people but inadvertently managed to actually uphold their rights, so long as those people had passed the sixth grade. But as anyone familiar with context can tell you, the first" at the beginning of the paragraph means there's going to be a second." And it's the back half where the law goes wrong yet again.
Second, but conversely, there is also a misunderstanding of Senate File 496 as it relates to students in grade six and below. The law forbids programs, promotion, and instruction to students in those grades relating to gender identity" and sexual orientation," but those terms are defined a neutral way that makes no distinction between cisgender or transgender identity or gay or straight relationships. Meaning: on its face, the law forbids any programs, promotion, or instruction recognizing that anyone is male or female or in a relationship of any sort (gay or straight). The statute is therefore content-neutral but so wildly overbroad that every school district and elementary school teacher in the State has likely been violating it since the day the school year started. This renders the statute void for vagueness under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the State will have unfettered discretion to decide when to enforce it and against whom, thus making it all but impossible for a reasonable person to know what will and will not lead to punishment.
Yeah, you read that right. The bigoted legislators who want everyone to be subjected to a hetero-centric worldview inadvertently criminalized discussing heterosexuality. If it were up to me, I'd let this part of the law stay alive and force those fuckers to live with it. Any attempt to amend it would just end up being blocked by the courts, so there would really be no downside. Educators prone to fighting the woke virus" or whatever would be subject to punishment the legislature clearly meant to target those more willing to treat students like human beings and not pass judgment on those that are different from them.
The injunction doesn't block the entire law, but only because the current plaintiffs in these suits can't demonstrate they'll be harmed by it.
[N]o Plaintiff has standing to challenge the provisions of Senate File 496 requiring school districts to notify a child's parents if the child asks for the use of pronouns that do not match the school's registration records or otherwise seeks an accommodation relating to gender identity. Only the GLBT Youth Student Plaintiffs challenge this portion of the law, but they are all already out" to their families and therefore not affected in a concrete way by this requirement. Thus, the Court has no authority to do anything except DENY the GLBT Youth Student Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction as it relates to this aspect of Senate File 496.
That's not the court saying this part of the law is good and correct and constitutional. That's the court stating what's needed to successfully challenge this particular aspect of this particularly awful law.
We're seeing a lot of hate in this nation. That's nothing new. Fortunately, the Constitution is still capable of shutting down the worst tendencies of the worst people writing laws. The nation's courts may not always protect everyone (see also: Dobbs) but the lower levels are still doing their best (in most cases!) to prevent the government from devolving into the sort of hate-based governing that punishes people simply because of their sexual orientation or preferences. We're still the land of the free. Unfortunately, we're also the home of the brave cowards, people who can't accept anything that doesn't mirror their own extremely limited perceptions.