Draft:American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa

About ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa is the state affiliate of the national American Civil Liberties Union. Established in 1935, the ACLU of Iowa was the fifth ACLU affiliate in the U.S. As a private, non-partisan organization, the organization strives to ensure the basic freedoms and liberties of all Iowans. They work in the Iowa legislature, in the courts, and through public advocacy and education.



Both the national ACLU and the Iowa affiliate are committed to criminal justice reform, disability rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, immigrant rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, personal privacy, reproductive rights, racial justice, student rights, and voting rights.

Book Bans
The ACLU of Iowa, along with Lambda Legal, filed a lawsuit arguing that Iowa Senate File 496 violates students’ first and 14th amendment rights. The law requires schools to remove books with sexual descriptions and prohibits teachers from discussing gender identity and sexual orientation in K-6 classrooms. The law also requires schools to notify parents if students use a name or pronoun which differs from what was given at birth.

At the end of December 2023, a federal judge blocked two parts of Senate File 496 relating to book removal.

Transgender Rights
The ACLU of Iowa’s journey of representing and advocating for transgender rights began in July 2016, when the ACLU of Iowa filed a civil rights complaint on behalf of Jesse Vroegh. Vroegh was denied the use of the men’s restroom by his employer, the Iowa Department of Corrections, because he is transgender.

Since then the ACLU of Iowa has filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of transgender clients who have faced employee discrimination and blocked medical coverage for medically necessary gender affirming surgery.

The ACLU of Iowa has also filed lawsuits against Iowa legislations including bills preventing doctors from administering gender-affirming care to those under 18, as well as preventing transgender students from entering school bathrooms and participating in school sponsored sports that correspond with their gender identities.

Reproductive Rights
In July 2023, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds called a special legislative session to pass a six-week abortion ban. Following the passage of the ban, the ACLU of Iowa, Planned Parenthood of North Central States, and the Emma Goldman Clinic filed a lawsuit. The case is currently being decided by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Tinker v. Des Moines
Tinker v. Des Moines was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, defining student’s freedom of speech in public schools.



In 1965, 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker and a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the war in Vietnam. The Des Moines schools learned of the protest and swiftly created a policy stating that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately and those who violated the policy would be suspended.

On December 16, Tinker and other students, including John Tinker and Chris Eckhardt, were suspended for wearing the armband. The students were told that they could not return to school until they agreed to remove their armbands. The students returned from winter break without armbands, but in protest, they wore black clothing and filed a lawsuit. Represented by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, the students and their families filed a First Amendment lawsuit. Dan Johnston was the lead attorney on the case.

On February 24, 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The court found that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Since wearing a black armband was not disruptive, the court held that the First Amendment protected the right of students to wear them in protest.

To this day the Tinker Test or substantial disruption test (a test used to determine whether an act by a U.S. public school has infringed a student’s constitutional right of free speech) has been applied to numerous cases involving student’s First Amendment rights.