Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—8th Cir.: Court vacates injunction against Iowa schools law regulating gender identity discussions, disclosures, (Apr 7, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Among other things, the law requires school officials to notify parents if a student requests an “accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity.”

Two Iowa educators and an non-profit organization were not entitled to a preliminary injunction against an Iowa law that: (1) precludes school districts from providing instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to K-6 students; and (2) requires school officials to notify parents if a student asks for the use of a pronoun that does not match the school’s registration records or requests an “accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity,” the Eighth Circuit held. The plaintiffs forewent their as-applied challenges to the law’s instruction section, which the appeals court found can be understood to apply only to mandatory parts of the educational curriculum. And the law’s parental notification section, though not defining an “accommodation,” was “clear enough that a person of ordinary intelligence can reasonably understand it” (Iowa Safe Schools v. Reynolds, No. 25-2186 (8th Cir. Apr. 6, 2026)).

Senate File 496. The passage of Iowa Senate File 496, according to the appeals court, impacted Iowa public school classrooms and curriculum in several ways.

Instruction section. First, it precluded a school district from providing instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six. Iowa Code § 279.80(2). According to this section, “A school district shall not provide any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six.”

Parental notification section. Second, the new law required school officials to notify parents if a student asks for the use of a pronoun that does not match the school’s registration records or requests an “accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity.” Iowa Code § 279.78(3).

According to this section, “If a student enrolled in a school district requests an accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity from a licensed practitioner employed by the school district, including a request that the licensed practitioner address the student using a name or pronoun that is different than the name or pronoun assigned to the student in the school district’s registration forms or records, the licensed practitioner shall report the student’s request to the administrator employed by the school district, and the administrator shall report the student’s request to the student’s parent or guardian.” School districts and their employees are subject to a written warning for a first violation and potential disciplinary action for subsequent violations.

Lawsuit. Two educators and a non-profit advocacy organization sued on behalf of the organization as well as six Iowa public school students, asserting that the provisions are facially overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.

The Eighth Circuit previously found that a federal district court in Iowa court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction in the plaintiffs’ favor, and it remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again issued a preliminary injunction against the provisions, and the state appealed.

Decision on appeal. The instruction section applies to only three of the plaintiffs, according to the appeals court: a fifth grade student, an elementary school teacher, and a middle school teacher who makes books available to sixth grade students. In addressing plaintiffs’ facial challenge to it, the district court concluded that all but two words in the statute—“program” and “promotion”—passed constitutional muster. These words, in the district court’s analysis, were too broad to refer only to mandatory classroom curriculum and violate the First Amendment by prohibiting school districts and educators from, for example, making extracurricular activities relating to gender identity and sexual orientation available to students in grades six and below.

The district court found the parental notification section unambiguously triggered if a student requests use of a pronoun different than the pronoun assigned to the student in the school district’s registration forms or records, but it found the language “accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity” impermissibly vague because the term “accommodation” has a broad meaning and, without being defined, can lead to unpredictable interpretations and create a substantial risk of arbitrary enforcement.

Mandatory curriculum only. Vacating the preliminary injunction, the Eighth Circuit first found that, throughout the litigation, the state insisted that the statute applies only to mandatory parts of the educational curriculum, and reading the plain language, the court could not disagree. “The statute lists seven activities separated by commas,” the appeals court observed. “Read together, we think the plain language speaks clearly enough to apply to classroom curriculum.”

Here, the plaintiffs forewent their as-applied challenges, and in a facial challenge, only the statutory text matters. The district court, in short, “engaged in a flawed analysis when it isolated two words in the statute to create an expansive view of the law’s scope.” Because there was accordingly an inadequate showing to demonstrate the unconstitutional applications of the section substantially outweighed the constitutional ones, the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, and the entry of a preliminary injunction was improper.

“[A]ccommodation” clear enough. The parental notification section fared similarly. Rejecting the district court’s conclusion that it is unconstitutionally vague, the Eighth Circuit found that the section, though not defining an “accommodation,” was “clear enough that a person of ordinary intelligence can reasonably understand it.” Nor were examples provided by the district court in an effort to demonstrate overbreadth—such as a female student asking to sit with boys at lunch, or a male student choosing a pink pencil, or a male student choosing to write reports about female historical figures—on their face student requests to change or modify gender identity. Because this section of the law “provides adequate notice of what conduct it governs and does not authorize or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” said the appeals court, the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits on their void-for-vagueness challenge.

Library restrictions injunctions. Finally, noting that the district court entered parallel preliminary injunctions as to Iowa Code § 256.11(9), which pertains to book restrictions in school libraries, the Eighth Circuit observed that the district court’s analysis relied on Penguin Random House LLC v. Robbins, 774 F.Supp.3d 1001 (S.D. Iowa 2025), which is now also on appeal before the federal appeals court. For reasons stated in its decision in that case, the Eighth Circuit also vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction vis-à-vis the library restrictions.

The case is No 25-2186.

Judge: Erickson, R.

Attorneys: Joshua Armstrong (Jenner & Block) for Iowa Safe Schools fka GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force, Belinda Scarrott, Richard Carlson, Ulrike Carlson, Eric Saylor, Brigit Stevens, Joseph Stevens, Lara Newsom, John Doe, Daniel Gutmann, and Alyson Telford. Patrick Cannon Valencia, Office of the Attorney General, for Kim Reynolds, McKenzie Snow, and John Robbins.

Companies: Iowa Safe Schools; GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force

Cases: IndividualRights PublicEmployees RemediesDamages ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews