US Court of Appeals reverses preliminary injunction blocking Iowa education bill

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking a law in Iowa that affected public schools’ library books and instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation.

In May 2023, the governor of Iowa signed Senate File 496 (SF 496) into law. This law introduced three changes to Iowa’s public education system.

First, the law amended s. 256.11 of the Iowa Code by adding regulations for public school libraries, effective Jan. 1, 2024. Second, the law imposed additional regulations on classrooms and curriculum under s. 279.80 of the Iowa Code, effective July 1, 2023. Finally, the law required schools to notify parents if a child requested to use pronouns that did not match school registration records or requested any accommodation relating to gender identity under s. 279.78 of the Iowa Code.

Two groups of plaintiffs – including students, authors, and advocacy organizations – challenged the law in court. They argued that the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Access Act.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted a preliminary injunction, which halted the enforcement of specific provisions of the law, including the requirement to remove books that were not age-appropriate.

Among other findings, the district court determined that a transgender student, identified as A.C., had standing to challenge the law’s bar against programs or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation for students in kindergarten through grade six. A.C. could no longer participate in the Genders & Sexualities Alliance club at school due to the law, the district court explained.

The state of Iowa appealed the district court’s decision.

Flawed legal analysis found

In GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force v. Reynolds, No. 24-1075, the United States Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the district court’s preliminary injunction based on a flawed legal analysis and sent the case back for further proceedings. The plaintiffs could still pursue injunctive relief, but they should do so under the proper legal framework, the appellate court said.

In reviewing the case, the appellate court first addressed whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law.

Regarding the removal of books from school libraries, the appellate court decided that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their First Amendment claim because this action could potentially infringe on free speech rights, the appellate court said. The plaintiffs showed a credible threat of prosecution under the law, the appellate court added.

The appellate court rejected the state’s argument that the removal of books amounted to government speech, which would not be subject to First Amendment protections. The public would likely not view the placement and removal of books in school libraries as government speech, unlike the placement of monuments in a park, the appellate court explained.

Next, regarding whether A.C. had standing to challenge the law’s section on instruction, the appellate court rejected the state’s argument that A.C.’s injury was not directly caused by the law but by the school district’s misinterpretation of it. A.C.’s injury was traceable to the law, even if the school district had misinterpreted it, the appellate court concluded.

However, the appellate court found that the district court’s judgment fell short because it failed to properly perform a facial analysis of the law in line with the decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 2383, 2397 (2024).