DES MOINES, Iowa — Senate File 496 has continuously sparked controversy after being signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds on July 1.
Part of the law requires schools to remove books with visual depictions or descriptions of sexual acts. This portion of the bill is what Penguin Random House, the Iowa State Education Association (ISEA) and others are legally challenging.
Penguin Random House and the ISEA announced the lawsuit Thursday morning with two authors, Malinda Lo and Laurie Halse Anderson, also signing on as plaintiffs in the case.
"Our lawsuit isn't breaking new ground as much as rethreading long corrected mistakes," said Dan Novack, attorney and vice president of Penguin Random House. "Government authorities cannot violate the First Amendment right to free speech by pretending that school grounds are constitutional no-fly zones."
Two middle school teachers, a district librarian, a student and their parent and two more authors are also joining in on the suit against the Iowa Department of Education and Gov. Kim Reynolds.
ISEA President Mike Beranek said parental involvement and input are critical to children's educational success, but Senate File 496 goes well beyond parental rights.
"We take issue with any parent or guardian censoring materials for everyone else's child," he said. "Our partnership and this lawsuit is one of many ways we are advocating to protect and promote the growth and success of all the students in our care."
In a statement to Local 5, Gov. Kim Reynolds said in part, "Protecting children from pornography and sexually explicit content shouldn't be controversial. The real controversy is that it exists in public schools."
Notably, this statement is the same one Reynolds' office provided when asked about another lawsuit: Earlier this week, the ACLU of Iowa filed a federal lawsuit, saying Senate File 496 "seeks to silence LGBTQ+ students".
Novack said Penguin Random House has been deeply affected by the new law, although the company's motivation to pursue the lawsuit is not money-related.
"We're not asking the court to recoup lost sales pay us back for the books that we missed out on," Novack said. "We see this as a First Amendment issue. And for that reason, the First Amendment is priceless to us. And so it would feel tacky to attach a price tag on our end."