by Ryan Benn
It’s been over two years since Iowa passed SF496 — a bill to get sexually explicit books out of public school libraries. The law’s requirements are straightforward and commonsense: Books in K-12 schools cannot contain visual depictions or descriptions of “sex acts.”
SO WHAT’S THE HOLD-UP? A single judge has decided TWICE that the First Amendment requires the government to provide erotic books to children.
District Court Judge Stephen Locher temporarily blocked the law in December 2023, but his ruling was reversed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024. Yet in March of 2025, Judge Locher blocked it again with another temporary injunction.
The core of the case
The core issue is whether the State has the authority to set content standards for public school libraries. In other words, can the state determine not to provide kids with inappropriate sexual material in school?
The case isn’t about whether kids can access sexual content. It isn’t about limits on material provided by bookstores, websites, or parents. It’s about the State’s ability to moderate explicit content in K-12 public schools.
When the Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Locher last summer, it asserted that the State does have policy-making authority in this area: “Iowa is not required to tolerate speech that undermines or is inconsistent with its central mission of educating Iowa children.”
Yet even after the Eighth Circuit’s admonition, Judge Locher decided to apply the same standard of review as in his first ruling, assuming that schools can only use the traditional “obscenity” standard when regulating content in school libraries — i.e. if it isn’t obscene in the traditional legal sense, schools must allow anything and everything.
But there is a major problem with that: The legal definition of “obscene,” even when applied to children, allows almost anything that isn’t a visual depiction of full-nudity sexual activity.
Judge Locher’s head-scratching persistence
Sadly, the reasoning behind Judge Locher’s decision was almost as absurd as the result. In determining the proper standard for review, he offered two lines of reasoning that were more red herring than substantive:
- First, he inserted an argument over whether local or state governments have authority to regulate content. While this issue plays a prominent role in the policy debate, it is irrelevant to the plaintiffs’ claim of a “free speech” violation, because the First Amendment applies equally to both levels of government.
- Second, Judge Locher worried, “The authors are being cut off from reaching tens of thousands of potential readers.” But again, this concern isn’t relevant. If the state can protect one child (or children at one school) from harmful content, why can’t it protect all children in Iowa’s public school system? And since when do authors have a constitutional right to have their books purchased by schools (or any other customer)?
Beyond this fundamental failure to apply a reasonable standard under the First Amendment, Judge Locher came to several other head-scratching conclusions:
- He decided that the law’s application should include “misapplications” of the law by plaintiffs. In other words, the people challenging the law can purposely misinterpret the law, and the court must honor their misinterpretation when determining the law’s constitutionality.
- He mistakenly concluded that Iowa’s obscene material law already protects Iowa students from harmful content in school libraries, when Iowa Code section 728.7 specifically exempts libraries and educational materials.
- He stated that protecting teens under 18 from exposure to sexual content in books is not a “reasonable governmental interest.”
- He seemed to assume that a book’s status as “classic” or “award-winning” makes it appropriate for children.
Examples of Judge Locher’s “classic” and “award-winning” literature
Judge Locher supported both of his injunction orders with a list of “classic” and “award-winning” books that had been removed from school libraries, implying that the law must be too broad if these particular books were removed. But few of the books listed are commonly considered “classics,” and several of the titles are patently despicable literature that has no place in schools.
For instance, Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut (one of the listed “classics”) is heavily laced with profanity and extensive sexual content. The book includes discussions of pornography, wet dreams, erections, orgasms, homosexuality, bestiality, and sexual acts, all of which are presented in a lewd manner. But none of this meets the legal definition of “obscenity,” and thus, under the standard applied by Judge Locher, schools are obligated to provide Vonnegut’s journey through the gutter to children.
Another of the “award-winning” books Judge Locher listed, Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult, is another despair-inducing read full of profanity. It includes extensive descriptions of high school students having sex, along with a host of other content that kids (not to mention adults) should avoid filling their heads with.
These two examples don’t support the idea that schools should provide these books to kids. Instead they confirm that the Iowa Legislature was right to take action.
Bottom line
There is no question, the Eighth Circuit should reverse the district court again and remove the injunction standing in the way of protecting kids in Iowa schools. Unfortunately, we will likely need to wait months before the appeal process is complete.
Ryan Benn is Legal Counsel & Director of Policy for The FAMiLY Leader.
