Iowa ACLU sends letters to cities calling for removal of drag restrictions
The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa sent letters Wednesday to five Iowa city councils calling for a change to local statutes that classify 'female impersonators' and 'male impersonators' as adult entertainment, saying such measures are unconstitutional.
The letters were sent to the city councils of Carroll, Harlan, Mt. Pleasant, Polk City and Webster City. The five Iowa municipalities have restrictions on performances — typically referring to drag shows — as adult entertainment. In the letters to the city councils, ACLU Staff Attorney Shefali Aurora wrote that the prohibitions on drag performances violate the state and U.S. constitutions, as they conflict with the First Amendment by restricting a form of expression that's protected under free speech rights.
Aurora also argued the ordinances violate constitutional equal protection rights, as the measures target the LGBTQ community on the basis of sex and gender expression.
Aurora said in a news conference Wednesday the ordinances are restricting performances that are neither obscene or sexual.
'Not all drag is obscenity,' Aurora said. 'A lot of drag performances are, in fact, family friendly. Too often, drag is equated with sexualized performances. But drag is not, by definition, adult entertainment. It can simply be someone wearing clothing and accessories conventionally worn by a person of a different gender.'
Other performances that entail stories involving a person dressed in a manner that does not traditionally correspond with their gender at birth — such as movies like 'Mulan' or 'Mrs. Doubtfire' — could be restricted from being shown under such local ordinances.
A statewide measure to ban minors' attendance at drag performances was discussed during the 2025 legislative session but ultimately did not advance. This proposed legislation contained similar language that defined drag as performances where the main aspect is 'a performer who exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth through the use of clothing, makeup, accessories, or other gender signifiers.'
The bill, which was amended, received heavy criticism not just for limiting family-friendly drag shows but potentially impacting transgender people's ability to be in non-drag public performances and preventing local theaters from performing classic art such as Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night,' as it contains a character that dresses as the opposite gender.
Aurora said this is not the first time the ACLU has sent letters to local governments about similar anti-drag ordinances. In the past, the organization has contacted Eagle Grove, Knoxville, Newton, Dyersville, Pella, Waukee and Grinnell — communities that agreed to amend their ordinances after receiving communications from the ACLU on the issue.
In 2021, Doña Martha's Office in Eagle Grove had canceled a drag show after receiving a letter from the city attorney that called for the performances to cease, claiming they violated municipal code. Aurora said Eagle Grove later agreed to amend the restriction on 'female impersonators' as part of the city's definition of adult entertainment.
While the ACLU is encouraging all cities to review their ordinances and remove language related to drag performances as inherently obscene, Aurora said the latest letters were sent as many Iowa communities are celebrating Pride month, holding events that sometimes host drag performances.
'We thought it was particularly important to raise this issue again this month, with it being Pride, which is why we're sending out the letters this week, just to bring that to the forefront,' Aurora said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
Trump's asylum ban at U.S.-Mexico border "unlawful," judge rules
President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border enacted in an emergency immigration proclamation on his first day in office is "unlawful," a federal judge ruled Wednesday. Why it matters: Although U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss postponed his order from taking effect for 14 days to allow for appeal, the processing of asylum claims at the border would resume immediately if the ruling is not overturned. Trump administration officials have already said they'll appeal Moss' ruling that found the president exceeded his authority in a Jan. 20 proclamation that denied asylum protections at the border. The case seems likely headed for the Supreme Court, which last week in a majority ruling imposed new limits on lower courts' abilities to freeze federal policies. Driving the news: The proclamation that's titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion" states the Immigration and Nationality Act "provides the President with certain emergency tools" that have enabled Trump's action. Immigration groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and multiple people seeking asylum filed a class action lawsuit in February challenging the legality of the proclamation, calling the "invasion" declaration unlawful and false. "[N]othing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," Moss wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void." The Constitution doesn't give a president authority to "adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated," according to the Obama-appointed D.C. judge. Between the lines: The attempted asylum changes are among many immigration enforcement reforms the Trump administration is trying to make via executive order or rule changes without going to Congress. The Trump administration issued a new rule in January that dramatically expands expedited removal to immigrants who cannot prove they have been continuously living in the U.S. for over two years. That rule is facing a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Trump administration also is trying to make immigrants previously granted humanitarian parole eligible for expedited removal, and that's also facing a legal challenge. What they're saying: ACLU of Texas legal director Adriana Piñon said in a statement Moss' rejection of the Trump administration's "efforts to upend our asylum system" was "a key ruling" for the U.S. "This attempt to completely shut down the border is an attack on the fundamental and longstanding right to seek safety in the U.S. from violence and persecution." Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which also brought the suit, said in a statement that no president "has the authority to unilaterally block people who come to our border seeking safety." The other side: "A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally," said Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House. "This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty," she said of the ruling. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal." White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on X claimed the order was trying to "circumvent" last week's Supreme Court ruling and that it declared undocumented immigrants as "a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States."
CBS News
4 hours ago
- CBS News
New Minnesota law sets guardrails for children of content creators featured in monetized videos
Parents who make a profit from online videos featuring their children may have to think twice before posting them because of a unique Minnesota law that took effect Tuesday. The statute puts guardrails around "content creation" and how minors are compensated for appearing in monetized videos on social media. Children 13 and younger are now prohibited from participating in those specific posts, and older teenagers who are featured — or make their own videos — must be paid revenues from that content into a trust account available to them when they turn 18. "They set it up as almost a child labor law. It's not about what you can say. It's about kids needing to be able to be paid for work that they do," said William McGeveran, dean of the University of Minnesota Law School, whose scholarship focuses on the First Amendment, data privacy and technology. "And if they're 13 and under, kids can't work in the ice cream shop and they can't work in their parents' content creation either. That's the way the law looks at it." The law defines a content creator as a person who creates "video content performed in Minnesota in exchange for compensation." The rules kick in about minors if they are included in at least 30% of that paid video content produced within a 30-day period. The law also empowers individuals featured in videos as children to demand that content is removed from platforms when they're older. McGeveran said other states have similar policies, like California, where state legislators recently expanded the law designed to protect the earnings of child actors to include content creators. But Minnesota is the only state to go so far as to set an age limit, he said. Fourteen is the general minimum age to work most jobs, with some exceptions. "There's a formula about how much you have to make, but if you're making any kind of serious money from the content you're posting as a parental influencer, then you're covered by this law," he explained. "But the ordinary person who just posts photos of their kids on Instagram or talks about them is not covered because they're not doing it for profit." State Sen. Erin Maye Quade, a Democrat who authored the law, said she and others in the Legislature tried to strike a balance between what she described as "low-level" versus "professionalized" content featuring children, which is highly orchestrated. The latter was the focus when they put the bill together, she said. She also noted that not all content parents' post generates enough money to hit the threshold in the law, which is $0.01 or greater for every view. "It doesn't mean people can't use their kids in non-monetized content. It doesn't mean that folks can't use their kid in monetized content for fewer days and hours. It just means that a kid's whole life can't be working for any industry, including this one," Maye Quade told WCCO. "Why would we make an exception here when we haven't for all the other kinds of work that I'm sure people would love kids to do, but it's not appropriate for kids to do?" Jenna Greer, who described herself as a content creator focusing on motherhood, documents her life as a parent on TikTok and Instagram to more than 460,000 people across both platforms. Many of those videos feature her three children under the age of 6. "The whole goal of me starting [the accounts] was the intention of being able to stay home with my kids and make a financial contribution to my family, and it has turned into that and so much more, which has been a blessing," she said in an interview. She explained that she makes some money through those platforms' creator funds, but the majority of the income she makes comes from paid partnerships with brands and that content may feature her kids. The new law will likely change what that looks like for her, but she said she understands and supports the goal of protecting children and ensuring they are fairly compensated. "It will be a learning curve. It could potentially affect us in just the way that we go about communicating with brands to secure those deals," Greer said. "If I have to come up front and say, 'My kids can't be in this,' we might lose that on specific kid-focused brand deals. So there is a chance that changes our income. I don't think it will be severe, but it will affect [it]."
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
ACLU sues to block ‘misleading' abortion ban from Missouri ballot
The ACLU of Missouri on Wednesday sued to block a proposed abortion ban from reaching the statewide ballot next year, marking the first major legal challenge intended to halt a Republican-led attempt to ban abortions again in Missouri. The lawsuit, filed in Cole County, argues the proposed abortion ban, which would also ban transgender health care for minors, violates the state constitution's requirement that ballot measures only deal with one subject. The suit also alleges that the language that voters would see on their ballots and posted at polling places, called a summary statement and fair ballot language, is misleading and written to entice voters. It specifically points to the fact that the language does not inform voters that the ballot measure would ban abortions. The lawsuit asks a judge to block the measure from the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot because it includes multiple subjects in violation of the state constitution. If the judge doesn't block it, the lawsuit asks the court to instead certify new, more accurate language for the ballot question. Wednesday's lawsuit comes after Republican lawmakers in May voted to put the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. The proposed ban was in response to a November statewide vote that legalized abortion and overturned a previous ban on the procedure. 'Less than six months after we voted to end Missouri's abortion ban and protect reproductive freedom, politicians chose to ignore the will of the people so they can reinstate their ban on abortion,' Tori Schafer, the ACLU's director of policy and campaigns, said in a statement. The proposed abortion ban, if approved, would strike down the November vote that legalized abortion in the state. The measure would allow abortions in medical emergencies and cases of fetal anomalies, such as birth defects. It would also allow the procedure in exceptionally rare cases of rape or incest within 12 weeks of gestational age. The language of the legislation, however, is silent on when exactly abortion would be banned, making it unclear whether the amendment is intended to allow the state's previous abortion ban to take effect or give lawmakers the ability to pass legislation to restrict access. The suit also comes after Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, certified the amendment for the November 2026 ballot. Hoskins certified the ban as 'Amendment 3,' the same name as the amendment that legalized abortions last November. The ACLU and the Missouri-based law firm Stinson filed the suit on behalf of Anna Fitz-James, a retired St. Louis-area doctor who initially filed the measure to legalize abortion. In addition to Hoskins, the suit also names three Republican state lawmakers as defendants, Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin from Shelbina, House Speaker Jonathan Patterson from Lee's Summit and Rep. Ed Lewis, the bill sponsor from Moberly. Lewis, in a statement to the Star, defended the language of the ballot measure, saying it 'seeks to find a middle ground on the abortion issue' and 'doesn't ban all abortions.' 'This is a ballot initiative that goes to the vote of the people, for their decision,' Lewis said. 'Why would anyone want to block it from the ballot?' A spokesperson for Hoskins declined comment on the suit, citing office policy not to comment on litigation. O'Laughlin also declined comment. Patterson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The ACLU, in the lawsuit, argues that the language of the proposed ban is 'misleading and inaccurate' because it does not inform voters that the amendment would eliminate the right to reproductive freedom, among other laws guaranteed by last November's vote. The ballot title certified by Hoskins states: 'Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; Ensure women's safety during abortions; Ensure parental consent for minors; Allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest; Require physicians to provide medically accurate information; and Protect children from gender transition?' In addition to the misleading language, the lawsuit also alleges that the ballot measure includes multiple subjects in violation of the state constitution. While the measure relates to 'reproductive health care,' the lawsuit points to the fact that it also bans gender-affirming care for minors, requires all legal actions related to reproductive health care to be filed in Cole County and creates a system that notifies Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey when there are lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of state laws. The decision to place the abortion ban on the November 2026 ballot was remarkable, signifying a retaliatory response from Republican lawmakers after nearly 52% of voters overturned the state's abortion ban. The vote last November was historic, offering a fierce rebuke of Republican state lawmakers who had spent decades restricting access. The constitutional amendment overturned a near-total ban that was enacted in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. In the wake of the vote, abortion opponents regularly argued in the state Capitol that Missourians didn't understand what they were voting on when they approved the measure. They claimed the measure would lead to unrestricted and unregulated abortions. But months after the vote, abortion providers are still fighting state officials in court to restore complete access. While Planned Parenthood's Kansas City clinic in February performed the first elective abortion in the state since the vote, abortions are once again effectively banned under a procedural ruling by the state Supreme Court in May.
