222927P.pdf   09/29/2023  Parents Defending Education  v.  LinnMar Community School Dist., et al
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-2927
                          and No:  22-2927
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - School law. Plaintiffs challenge defendant school district's 
   "Administrative Regulations Regarding Transgender and Nonconforming to 
   Gender Role Stereotypes," which includes a provision for the establishment 
   of "Gender Supports." A Gender Support is an accommodation for transgender 
   students regarding names/pronouns, restroom and locker facilities, 
   overnight accommodations on school trips, and participation in school 
   activities. Plaintiffs alleged that the regulations violated parents 
   substantive due process rights to direct the care, custody, and control of 
   their children or that it injured parents by violating their childrens' 
   rights to freedom of expression. The district court denied the plaintiff's 
   request for a preliminary injunction of the policy, concluding plaintiff 
   failed to establish Article III standing because the organization could 
   not show injury, causation, or redressibility of its claims; the court 
   further reasoned that if standing did exist, the claims would likely fail 
   on the merits and that injunctive relief should not be granted. Held: A 
   law passed while the matter was pending, Iowa Code Sec. 279.78 (2023), 
   which prevents the school district from providing incorrect information to 
   a parent about their child's gender identity and which requires the 
   district to alert the parents of a student request for gender 
   accommodation, gives plaintiff all of the substantive due process relief 
   it sought, and moots that portion of the appeal; with respect to 
   plaintiff's First Amendment claims, the complaint alleged that a student's 
   speech on gender identity was chilled by the threat that intentional 
   and/or persistent refusal to respect another student's gender identity 
   would be treated as a violation of school rules, and this alleged an 
   injury in fact that was sufficient to confer Article III standing; 
   further, the plaintiff is likely to prevail on its challenge to this 
   portion of the policy on the ground that it is void for vagueness; due to 
   the vagueness of the policy, the case is remanded to the district court 
   with directions to grant a preliminary injunction against enforcement of 
   the policy prohibiting an intentional or persistent refusal to respect a 
   student's gender identity. Judge Kelly, concurring