In America: 8th Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction On Iowa’s Bill Affecting LGBTQIA+ Issues
Despite the notion that the First Amendment protects all forms of free speech in the United States, certain forms of speech, such as hate speech, remain restricted. One of the most prominent arenas in which these tensions play out is the debate over appropriate educational topics for formal school instruction in the U.S. Recent developments on the constitutionality of Iowa’s SF 496 bill reflect these tensions and the broader debate on gender and sexuality in America.
On May 26th, 2023, the state of Iowa signed bill SF 496 into law. SF 496 is a broad sweeping educational bill with three especially noteworthy provisions:
A book ban on all books containing descriptions or depictions of a sex act (with the Bible and other religious texts exempt) affecting grades K-12.
A “Don’t Say Gay” provision that prohibits promotion, curriculum, instruction, and more related to gender identity or sexual orientation in grades K-6.
A “Forced Outing” provision that requires teachers, counselors, and other staff to report students to parents/guardians if the student asks to use a name or pronoun related to gender identity.
SF 496 went into effect during the 2023 to 2024 school year. By November 2023, the ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal had filed a suit against the State of Iowa to block SF 496, highlighting the harms caused by the three aforementioned provisions. A separate lawsuit filed by Penguin Random House sought to block the book-ban provisions in SF 496.
By December 2023, a lower federal court in Des Moines had issued temporary injunctions blocking certain provisions of SF 496. The state of Iowa appealed this injunction, and the case moved to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Throughout 2024 and 2025, the case would bounce back and forth between the 8th Circuit and the lower court in Des Moines as new precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court's Moody v. NetChoice forced a reevaluation of the constitutionality of SF 496. Renewed requests for a preliminary injunction by the ACLU of Iowa/Lambda Legal and Penguin Random House were granted by the district court in Des Moines and appealed by the state of Iowa.
By January 2026, oral arguments were heard in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. These concluded with the recent April 6th, 2026 ruling to vacate the previous preliminary injunctions, but with narrower constraints on when and where the law may be applied. For example, the “Don’t Say Gay” prohibition only applies to mandatory classroom instruction on these topics while not forcing schools to limit LGBTQIA+ expression outside of this setting.
Especially important to this legal case is when and how the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. As understood by the 8th Circuit Court, two aspects of free speech are under question: a student’s right to receive information and a publisher/author’s right to communicate with their intended audience.
The 8th Circuit’s interpretation of the first dynamic is that book bans do not prevent a student from receiving information since such information can be obtained elsewhere. In addition, the 8th Circuit noted that the First Amendment does not guarantee a student’s right to access books of their choosing at taxpayer expense.
On the second dynamic in question, the 8th Circuit’s ruling is more complex. For one, the 8th Circuit distinguishes between categories of free speech. In the context of these cases, the relevant categories include student speech occurring on school premises, government speech, and school-sponsored speech. The 8th Circuit’s understanding of legal precedent concerning these categories of free speech is that a school’s library is characterized as part of a school’s curriculum. Thus, it is reasonable that schools have a legitimate pedagogical interest in prohibiting speech involving sexual content. Legal precedent establishes that when courts can determine a legitimate pedagogical interest in prohibiting school-sponsored speech, such prohibition does not violate the First Amendment.
Supporters of SF 496 celebrated the April 6th ruling as a win. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird commented on the ruling:
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. I am grateful that our law protecting children was upheld today. — Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird
The State of Iowa’s broader position within these lawsuits has been that LGBTQIA+ material is inappropriate and/or radical content that should be more strongly regulated by local governments or school boards.
More broadly, supporters of laws that restrict or censor LGBTQIA+ material and teachings in school systems typically argue for the right of parental oversight on when and how such sensitive topics are introduced to their children. Furthermore, supporters of such restrictions also question the age-appropriateness of such topics for young children and whether formal instruction on such topics amounts to indoctrination of perceived radical philosophies like gender theory.
On the flip side, opponents of SF 496 lamented the ruling as a setback to the protection of First Amendment rights in Iowa. Nathan Maxwell, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, also commented on the ruling:
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. — Senior Attorney Nathan Maxwell
More general critiques of policies and bills, such as SF 496, reflect Maxwell’s statement. Opponents of such policies cite the adverse effects such laws can have on LGBTQIA+ students’ mental health by generating anxiety, depression, and encouraging bullying of these students. Additionally, these policies can produce negative environments for educators where they are forced to disclose students' sexual orientation or gender identity status or eliminate important classroom discussions on history, race, and identity out of fear of repercussions.
Overall, recent developments over the constitutionality of Iowa’s SF 496 bill reflect a new phase in the broader debate on gender and sexuality in America. As states take divergent actions on what is or is not permissible for educational content in formal schooling, this debate on gender and sexuality will continue to take a front seat in American politics and legislative priorities.