“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on American’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in these cases?
Book publishers and LGBTQ+ groups challenged an Iowa law that requires removal of books in school libraries that depict or describe any “sex act” and bars teaching related to gender identity or sexual orientation to students below grade 7.
What happened in these cases?
Last year, a federal district court issued injunctions in two separate cases partially blocking the law as violating the First Amendment. Both cases were appealed to the Eighth Circuit, and heard by a panel including Trump judges Ralph Erickson and Jonathan Kobes plus George W Bush judge Lavenski Smith.
In April, Judge Erickson wrote decisions in both cases, joined by Kobes and Smith, which overturned the lower court injunctions and authorized full enforcement of the restrictive Iowa law. In Penguin Random House v Robbins, Erickson wrote that government can exercise editorial control over what books are in school libraries as long as its actions are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns,” which he maintained was true in this case. In Iowa Safe Schools v Reynolds, Erickson found that while the law is broad, it is “not vague,” and vacated the injunction against it, sending the case back for further evaluation on the merits.
Why are the decisions harmful?
The rulings by Trump judge Erickson have already drawn significant criticism. PEN America has explained that the court’s “wrongheaded” decision to categorize school library selection decisions as “school sponsored speech fundamentally misunderstands” the purpose of libraries, and the ban will deprive students of access to “some of the most enduring and celebrated literary works.” Nathan Maxwell, senior attorney at Lambda Legal, stated that the Iowa law is a “cruel” measure that “silences” and otherwise harms LGBTQ+ children. The decision sets a bad precedent, especially in the Eighth Circuit, which includes Iowa, Arkansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.