On August 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”) reversed a previous ruling by a federal district court judge in two cases granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of certain provisions of Iowa Senate File 496 (“SF 496”). The preliminary injunction is now vacated and no longer in force. The effect of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling is that the previously enjoined provisions of SF 496 are once again in effect and are enforceable provisions of Iowa law.
As background, SF 496 was signed into law in May 2023 as part of a large legislative package on education. In fall 2023, two separate groups of plaintiffs sued varying State defendants and Iowa school district defendants in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality and enforceability of certain requirements of SF 496. The specific requirements challenged in the lawsuits include:
- the requirement that all materials in a school district’s K-12 library program are “age-appropriate,” specifically prohibiting any materials containing a description or depiction of a “sex act,” as defined by Iowa criminal law; and
- the prohibition on school districts providing “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation” to K-6 students.
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction of the above provisions to prevent their enforcement during the duration of the litigation. Following the federal district court’s December 29, 2023 decision enjoining these two provisions, the State defendants appealed the injunction to the Eighth Circuit.
The State defendants and plaintiffs briefed and argued their positions to a 3-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit in June 2024. The Eighth Circuit ruled that the district court did not properly analyze the plaintiffs’ challenge of the constitutionality of the two SF 496 provisions before granting the preliminary injunction. As a result, the Eighth Circuit reversed the federal district court’s decision to grant the preliminary injunction, vacated that preliminary injunction, and returned the two lawsuits to the federal district court for further proceedings.
In our previous client alert, issued on January 2, 2024, we said the federal district court’s preliminary injunction that was granted would remain in effect until further court order. This recent Eighth Circuit decision is that further court order. The age-appropriate requirement for K-12 library programs and the prohibition against gender identity and sexual orientation instruction to grades K-6 are in effect.
Litigation remains ongoing, and the status of the challenged SF 496 provisions are subject to change pursuant to future court orders.
This client alert is being provided to all our K-12 school district clients. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the impact of the Eighth Circuit’s decision to lift the injunction of SF 496 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 as a substitute for seeking professional counsel. Readers should not under any circumstance act upon the information in this publication without seeking specific professional counsel. 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.
©2024 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.