Industry & Advocacy News

Authors Guild Acknowledges Partial Victory in Iowa Book Ban Case: A Step Forward for First Amendment Rights

Book Banning Free Speech

August 15, 2024

• Share
• on Twitter (opens in a new tab)
• on Facebook (opens in a new tab)
• on Linkedin (opens in a new tab)
• via email

In a pivotal decision, on August 9, 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a mixed ruling on Iowa’s controversial book ban law, Senate File 496, in the cases GLBT Youth in IA Schools v. Reynolds and Penguin Random House v. Robbins. While the court disappointingly reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction that had temporarily halted book removals from school libraries, it made a crucial determination: The act of removing books from public school libraries is not “government speech” but a government action subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

This ruling means that school districts cannot claim immunity from First Amendment challenges when removing books, as their actions must now be evaluated against constitutional free speech protections. It sets a significant legal precedent that strengthens the position of those fighting against book bans and censorship in schools across the country.

Earlier this summer, the Authors Guild filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the Eighth Circuit along with eight other organizations, supporting plaintiffs’ arguments and underscoring the far-reaching implications of the law, which has already led to the removal of numerous classic works and titles exploring gender identity and sexual orientation from school library shelves. 

Defendants in other book removal cases have argued that their decisions to remove books from public libraries or school libraries are “government speech” and that selecting or removing books is a state or local government expressing its viewpoint. “Government speech” is when governments (at all levels) express their own viewpoints, as opposed to government actions that regulate private speech, which must be viewpoint-neutral; the theory is that when people disagree with the government’s speech, they can express themselves at the ballot box.

The Eighth Circuit stated that “[c]ontrary to Defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court has not extended the government speech doctrine to the placement and removal of books in public school libraries,” and held that plaintiffs could litigate their First Amendment claims. This ruling is of course very helpful to the eventual outcome of this case, and it will be helpful in other cases where school boards and other government entities make these misguided arguments, including the Arkansas book ban law case in which the Guild is a plaintiff.

While the court’s decision to vacate the preliminary injunction is disappointing, plaintiffs still have the opportunity to adjust their argument to demonstrate to the District Court the breadth of the Iowa law’s infringement on First Amendment rights in a way that will hopefully prompt an injunction that the Eighth Circuit will approve. The Authors Guild will continue to monitor the case and to file additional amicus briefs where appropriate.