A federal judge has issued an order that blocks significant portions of Iowa’s controversial anti-LGBTQ education law, often referred to by critics as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law.
This law, signed into effect by Governor Kim Reynolds in May 2023, includes several provisions that critics argue infringe upon the rights of LGBTQ students and teachers.
Among the key components of the law is a ban on any books featuring ‘descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act’—with exceptions for approved scientific or health texts and religious texts such as the Bible.
Additionally, the law prohibits any discussion or instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity in K-6 classrooms.
Teachers and other school personnel are also restricted from making accommodations for students’ gender identities without first obtaining written consent from their parents or legal guardians.
Furthermore, the law mandates that educators must inform parents if a student wishes to use a name or pronouns that differ from those assigned at birth.
The ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal spearheaded a legal challenge against the law, filing a lawsuit on behalf of the LGBTQ organization Iowa Safe Schools and seven affected Iowa students and their families.
Additionally, Penguin Random House entered the legal fray by filing a separate lawsuit on behalf of four authors whose works were deemed censored under the book ban.
The lawsuit has gained traction, drawing support from the state’s largest teachers’ union, the Author’s Guild, and several major publishing houses, all of which have joined the lawsuit.
In December 2023, U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher, presiding over the Southern District of Iowa, combined the two lawsuits for consideration.
Judge Locher later ruled that the book ban provision of the law likely violates the First Amendment and that the restrictions on LGBTQ-related content in classrooms were unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.
In response, the state appealed the decision, leading to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifting the initial injunction and instructing the lower court to apply a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling in evaluating the arguments presented.
By March, Judge Locher issued a temporary injunction halting the enforcement of the bans, and on May 15, he formalized a preliminary injunction that blocked certain portions of the law while allowing others to come into effect.
Locher decided to uphold the law’s ban on mandatory K-6 lessons that delve deeply into ‘gender identity’ or ‘sexual orientation,’ claiming this restriction must equally apply to all sexual orientations and gender identities.
“It does not matter whether the lessons or instruction revolve around cisgender or transgender identities or straight or gay sexual orientations,” Locher stated.
“All are forbidden.”
However, the judge emphasized that teachers should not face consequences for incidental or neutral references to sexual orientation or gender identity that may arise within a broader educational context.
Furthermore, he clarified that educators can assign literature or teach lessons involving characters or identities—both cisgender and transgender—as long as these topics are not the primary focus of the lesson.
Locher also recognized that some provisions of the law that ban ‘programs’ related to gender identity are excessively broad, implicitly noting that such a ban could encompass any acknowledgment of ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ sports teams or any classroom activities that endorse gender identity.
Consequently, Locher blocked the provision of the law that prohibits Gender-Sexuality Alliances and other student groups focused on gender identity or sexual orientation, affirming that students must have the right to form or join such groups if they wish.
The court’s ruling monitoring the law has highlighted the chilling effect it has had on schools. Reports indicate that many districts have removed LGBTQ symbols, including Pride flags and safe space stickers, due to fears over potential legal repercussions for teachers.
In some instances, teachers were reportedly advised against discussing their same-sex partners in a manner accessible to students, a move deemed to violate their First Amendment rights by Locher.
In addition, the law’s requirement for written parental permission before accommodating a student’s gender identity was criticized for lacking clarity on what constitutes an ‘accommodation.’
However, the law’s parental notification provision remains intact, which requires educators to inform parents when a student requests alternative names or pronouns that do not align with their official school records.
Judge Locher concluded that both the student and teacher plaintiffs associated with the lawsuit could endure ‘irreparable harm’ if the provisions he blocked were allowed to take effect.
Nathan Maxwell, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, commented on the significance of the ruling, stating, ‘This ruling acknowledges that Iowa students and teachers have experienced real harm from this law.’
Maxwell further emphasized, ‘The court agreed with us that the latitude afforded the State to determine school curricula does not empower lawmakers to erase any mention of LGBTQ+ people altogether from schools.’
image source from：https://www.metroweekly.com/2025/05/federal-judge-guts-iowas-dont-say-gay-law/
