For the second time, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eight Circuit”) has vacated preliminary injunctions issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (“Southern District”) in pending cases challenging portions of Iowa Code Chapter 279, which were enacted as Iowa Senate File 496 (“SF 496”). Background regarding these cases and previous rulings can be found in past client alerts here, here, and here.
The Eighth Circuit’s rulings, issued on April 6, 2026, affect the previously enjoined provisions of SF 496. These provisions:
1. prohibit schools 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 6 (the “Instruction Section”); and
2. require school officials to report to a student’s parent or guardian if the student requests an accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity (the “Parent Notification Section”); and
3. require school districts to establish a K-12 library program that contains only “age-appropriate” materials, which cannot include the description or depiction of a sex act as statutorily defined (the “Library Section”).
The Eighth Circuit’s Analysis
The Eighth Circuit found that the Instruction Section of SF 496 applies only to mandatory parts of the educational curriculum, where the Southern District had interpreted it to have a broader scope.
The Eighth Circuit also disagreed with the Southern District’s conclusion that the lack of a definition for the term “accommodation” in the Parent Notification Section rendered SF 496’s notification requirements impermissibly vague.
Finally, the Eighth Circuit found that the selection of books in school libraries in the Library Section of SF 496 is “school-sponsored” speech over which schools can exercise editorial control, as long as its conduct is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The Eighth Circuit found that schools have a legitimate pedagogical concern in prohibiting speech that contains sexual content. The Eighth Circuit further rejected the argument that the law is too amorphous and difficult to apply, finding “[t]he plain language of the statute prohibits books containing ‘descriptions’ or ‘visual depictions’ of six categories of specified sex act. The specified sex acts are detailed under Iowa law.”
Facial vs. As-Applied Challenges
In both decisions, the Eighth Circuit emphasized that the plaintiffs brought facial challenges to SF 496, requiring them to show that the challenged provisions are unconstitutional on their face, rather than as applied to a specific individual. Facial challenges require plaintiffs to meet a high bar, and the Eighth Circuit found Plaintiffs are unlikely to success on the merits of the facial challenges to SF 496. The decisions pointed out that as-applied challenges would be available to plaintiffs who are affected by specific applications the law in the future.
Impact and Next Steps
This means that the previously enjoined provisions of SF 496 are now in effect. However, the plaintiffs have requested rehearing by the full Eighth Circuit. The status of the challenged SF 496 provisions are subject to change pursuant to future court orders.
This client alert is being issued to all our K-12 school district clients. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the impact of the Eighth Circuit’s decisions to lift these injunctions on your school district.
About Ahlers & Cooney's Client Alerts
Our Client Alerts are intended to provide occasional general comments on new developments in Federal and State law and regulations which we believe might be of interest to our clients. The Client Alerts should not be considered opinions of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not under any circumstance act upon the information in this publication without seeking specific professional counsel. Please note that AI tools may not accurately interpret or apply the legal information contained in this alert; reliance on such tools is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Ahlers & Cooney will be pleased to provide additional details regarding any article upon request. Additional copies of this Client Alert may be obtained by contacting any attorney in the Firm or by visiting the Firm's website at www.ahlerslaw.com.
©2026 Ahlers & Cooney, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa. Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice does not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor does it mean that such lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.