← Back to Blogs

Timeline of Events Surrounding Iowa’s Book Banning Law (SF 496)

In May 2023, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 496 into law, marking a troubling moment in the history of American education. By prohibiting books with descriptions of sex acts in classrooms and libraries, and banning books with LGBTQ+ characters or themes from K-6 schools, the law struck at the heart of intellectual freedom. SF 496 sparked immediate outrage for its vague, overbroad language, its discriminatory targeting of LGBTQ+ content, and its affront to local governance and professional judgment.

This legislation reflects a disturbing trend in American history: the use of moral panic to consolidate political power by attacking intellectual freedoms. By overriding local school boards and professional educators, Iowa’s leaders inserted themselves into the private lives of students and families, claiming the right to decide what ideas young minds should encounter. To understand the implications of SF 496, it is useful to revisit key historical moments in the American struggle over free speech and education. Cases like Board of Education v. Pico (1982) established that school boards cannot remove books simply because they disagree with their ideas. Similarly, the Miller Test (1973), created to determine whether material is obscene, underscores the necessity of context in evaluating literary or artistic works. SF 496 brazenly ignores these precedents, opting instead for blanket bans that stifle intellectual inquiry.

Key Events

May 2023:

This kid is our hero!

Governor Reynolds signed SF 496 into law amidst widespread backlash. Critics decried its unprecedented censorship, pointing to its vague language and its erasure of LGBTQ+ voices. While states like Florida and Texas receive the most media attention for their book bans, Iowa quietly enacted one of the nation’s most draconian laws, weaponizing education policy in the service of ideology.

November 2023:

Two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to challenge SF 496:

  • The Iowa Safe Schools Lawsuit: Filed by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and families.
  • The Penguin Lawsuit: Filed by authors like Jodi Picoult, John Green, and Laurie Halse Anderson, along with book publishers, teachers, and families.

These lawsuits reflect a growing coalition of resistance to censorship, uniting authors, educators, and marginalized communities in defense of free expression.

December 2023:

U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher issued a preliminary injunction, describing parts of SF 496 as “wildly overbroad.” While this decision offered a temporary reprieve, the state of Iowa promptly appealed, signaling its determination to push forward with this deeply flawed law.

August 2024:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the injunction, requiring the district court to reconsider the case under a new Supreme Court standard. This procedural ruling allowed SF 496 to take effect just as the 2024–25 school year began, leaving school districts scrambling to remove over 1,200 books to avoid state penalties.The purge targeted classics like The Color Purple, Slaughterhouse-Five, Nineteen Minutes, and Native Son. These works, long celebrated for their contributions to literature and history, were erased from school shelves in the name of “protecting children.”

October 2024 – January 2025:

The legal battle continued as plaintiffs sought to reinstate the injunction. Key developments included:

  • October 2024: Plaintiffs filed briefs arguing SF 496’s unconstitutionality.
  • Early December 2024: The state defended the law with a mixture of alarmism and disdain for professional educators.
  • January 6, 2025: Plaintiffs filed rebuttals dismantling the state’s arguments.

Analysis of Arguments

1. Library Restrictions: Overreach and Misrepresentation

  • Defendants’ Argument: The law narrowly targets “descriptions of sex acts” to protect children.

Plaintiffs’ Response: This claim is disingenuous. SF 496 ignores context, literary value, or age appropriateness, forcing the removal of books that discuss sexual trauma, health, or historical events like The Rape of Nanking. The plaintiffs rightly argue that this law creates a chilling effect on educators and denies students access to critical learning materials.

2. Library Restrictions: Misuse of Educational Discretion

  • Defendants’ Argument: The law respects local discretion and aligns with educational goals.

Plaintiffs’ Response: Local discretion? Hardly. SF 496 undermines professional judgment by imposing a rigid, top-down mandate. The state’s distrust of librarians—trained experts in age-appropriate content—is both unwarranted and insulting.

3. Library Restrictions: No Legitimate Justification

  • Defendants’ Argument: SF 496 protects children from the risk of encountering “Playboy” or the Kama Sutra in school libraries.

Plaintiffs’ Response: This argument is a red herring, invoking absurd examples to justify sweeping censorship. Professional librarians already vet collections to ensure educational value. The real targets of SF 496—works like The Bluest Eye—show the state’s true aim: erasing diverse and challenging perspectives.

Defendants’ Argument: School libraries constitute “government speech,” allowing the state to remove materials at will.

Plaintiffs’ Response: This Orwellian interpretation of “government speech” was already rejected by the appellate court. Allowing the state unfettered power to ban books for ideological reasons would undermine the fundamental principles of intellectual freedom.

5. The “Don’t Say Gay” in K-6 Prohibition: Discrimination and Chilling Effect

  • Defendants’ Argument: The law applies neutrally to all discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Plaintiffs’ Response: Neutral? Hardly. The state admits that a book featuring a gay character would be banned, while one with a straight character would not. This discriminatory targeting of LGBTQ+ content violates the Equal Protection Clause and silences diverse perspectives.

6. The “Don’t Say Gay” Prohibition—Limited to Classroom Instruction or Not?

  • Defendants’ Argument: The law applies only to mandatory instruction, not to library books or extracurricular clubs.

Plaintiffs’ Response: The state cannot rewrite its own law to avoid scrutiny. SF 496’s plain language clearly extends beyond classroom instruction, targeting promotions, questionnaires, and more. If the law is interpreted as broadly as written, it is likely unconstitutional.

Conclusion

SF 496 continues a long American tradition of using moral panic to justify censorship. By targeting diverse voices and erasing LGBTQ+ representation, the law undermines intellectual freedom and denies students access to literature that fosters empathy, critical thinking, and understanding.

As legal challenges unfold, it is worth remembering the lessons of Pico: public education must remain a space for the “marketplace of ideas,” where students can engage with diverse perspectives. Iowa’s lawmakers have forgotten this principle, but the courts—and the public—must not.

The February 6 hearing will be pivotal in determining whether Iowa’s assault on education can be stopped. Annie’s Foundation plans to attend the hearing in Des Moines, standing alongside those who fight for intellectual freedom.