PRH v. Robbins & Iowa Safe Schools v. Reynolds

Betsy Gomez Access, Censorship, Court Opinions and Rulings, Litigation
PRH versus Robbins and Iowa Safe Schools versus Reynolds

What are these cases about? 

These cases were filed by publishers, authors, and students after Iowa passed Senate File 496, a law that requires the removal of books containing “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” from Iowa’s public school libraries. The law also imposes penalties on educators who do not comply. The plaintiffs claimed that SF 496 was unconstitutional on its face. (The plaintiffs said the law could never be applied fairly and must be struck down before it is applied. Courts treat “facial challenges” differently than “as-applied challenges,” in which plaintiffs sue after a law is applied, focusing on the actual impacts of the law, such as books being removed from libraries.) 

In December 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa entered a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of portions of SF 496. (A preliminary injunction is a court order that halts the enforcement of a law to prevent irreversible harm while a judge decides whether the law is unconstitutional.) 

In 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction1 and sent the case back to the district court for analysis under Moody v. NetChoice, LLC,2 a 2024 Supreme Court opinion that affirms a higher threshold for facial challenges, saying that to win a facial challenge, plaintiffs must prove that the law is unconstitutional in a substantial number of its applications, and that its unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh the legitimate ones. 

On April 6, 2026, the Eighth Circuit issued its decision3 in the Iowa Safe Schools case (formerly GLBT Youth) and in PRH v. Robbins. The court found that school libraries are likely school-sponsored speech, which can be censored, and lifted the preliminary injunction. SF 496 will remain in effect while the district court decides whether the law is constitutional.

What does the Eighth Circuit get wrong?

The Eighth Circuit opinion incorrectly treats school libraries like school curricula.

When it comes to students’ First Amendment rights, U.S. courts have always treated school libraries differently than school curricula. In Island Trees School District v. Pico,4 the Court said that school libraries are places where students “can literally explore the unknown, and discover areas of interest and thought not covered by the prescribed curriculum.” Unlike curricula, reading a library book is voluntary. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier5 (a case on which the Eighth Circuit relies), the Supreme Court reiterates Pico, holding that removing books from library shelves merely because a school board disapproves of the ideas the books express is one that runs afoul of the Constitution. Walls v. Sanders6 (another Eighth Circuit case cited by the court in the SF 496 opinions) also differentiates libraries from curricula, following the Hazelwood opinion.

Iowa’s district court understood this distinction and determined that SF 496 likely would be applied in ways that violate people’s First Amendment rights, but the Eighth Circuit did not. While the Eighth Circuit followed the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of the argument that libraries are government speech, it also conflated libraries with school curricula. The Court said that the school library is “school-sponsored speech” that “bears the imprimatur of the school” instead of viewpoint neutral spaces where students can explore a variety of ideas and knowledge. 

The Eighth Circuit opinion leans on flawed ideas from the Fifth Circuit’s Little v. Llano County decision.

The Eighth Circuit followed some parts of the decision in Little.7 First, the Court said that removing books from a school library does not prevent students from receiving information. The Court also decided that there is no right to receive information in public schools. Second, the Court said that Pico does not have “precedential weight as to the application of First Amendment principles,” giving itself permission to override the Supreme Court decision like the Llano court did.

The Eighth Circuit opinion ignores the overbroad nature of the law.

The Eighth Circuit found that because the phrase “sex act” is defined by Iowa Code § 702.17, the implementation of a law prohibiting all descriptions and depictions of sex acts in school library material is not amorphous or difficult to implement. This conclusion ignores the complex reality of literature, art, fictional and nonfictional accounts, as well as numerous court holdings finding that laws that do not consider Miller v. California8 (the Miller test) and Ginsberg v. New York9 are unconstitutional.

Notes

  1. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/iowa-publishers-appellees-brief-in-school-books-ban.pdf
  2. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11224
  3. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/lgbtq-group-v-iowa-court-of-appeals-ruling.pdf
  4. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2043
  5. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836
  6. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241990P.pdf
  7. https://www.oif.ala.org/what-now-libraries-after-little-v-llano-county/
  8. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-73
  9. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/47


Please note that the information provided here may not reflect the most recent legal updates. Always consult with an attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. 

View and download a PDF of this information (last updated June 22, 2026; click here to download a version of the PDF with bleed for professional printing):

OIF Onesheets Eighth Circuit webDownload