Arc Iowa v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. 21-3268,21-3268 |
| Citation | 24 F.4th 1162 |
| Parties | The ARC OF IOWA; Charmaine Alexander, Individually and on behalf of C.B.; Johnathan Craig, Individually and on behalf of E.C. on behalf of J.C.; Michelle Croft, Individually and on behalf of J.J.B. ; Amanda Devereaux, Individually and on behalf of P.D.; Carissa Froyum Roise, Individually and on behalf of H.J.F.R. ; Lidija Geest, Individually and on behalf of K.G.; Melissa Hadden, Individually and on behalf of V.M.H.; Lisa Hardisty Sithonnorath, Individually and on behalf of A.S.; Heather Lynn Preston, Individually and on behalf of M.P. on behalf of S.P.; Rebekah Stewart, Individually and on behalf of E.M.S.; Erin Vercande, Individually and on behalf of S.V. Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Kimberly REYNOLDS, In her official capacity as Governor of Iowa; Ann Lebo, In her official capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Education Defendants - Appellants Ankeny Community School District ; Council Bluffs Community School District ; Davenport Community School District ; Decorah Community School District; Denver Community School District; Des Moines Public Schools ; Iowa City Community School District ; Johnston Community School District; Linn Mar Community School District ; Waterloo Community School District Defendants American Academy of Pediatrics; American Academy of Pediatrics, Iowa Chapter Amici on Behalf of Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Samuel Paul Langholz, Assistant Solicitor General, of Des Moines, IA. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellant brief; Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor General, of Des Moines, IA.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Elisabeth S. Theodore, of Washington, DC. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellee brief; Shefali Aurora, Rita Bettis Austen and Leah Patton, Des Moines, IA; John A. Freedman, Elisabeth S. Theodore, Anthony Franze, and Tara L. Williamson of Washington, DC; Catherine Johnson and Cynthia A. Miller, Des Moines, IA, Louise Melling and Jennesa Calvo-Friedman of New York, NY; Shira Wakschlag of Washington, DC; Susan Mizner of San Francisco, CA; Jim T. Duff and Thomas J. Duff of West Des Moines, IA.
The following attorney(s) appeared on the amicus brief of Iowa Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Pediatrics on behalf of Appellees: Leon Greenfield, Perry Lange, David Katz and Anna Noone of Washington, DC; Caitlin L. Slessor and Samuel E. Jones of Cedar Rapids, IA; Jessica Anne Morton and Jeffrey B. Dubner of Washington, DC.
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs, the Arc of Iowa and Iowa parents whose children have serious disabilities that place them at heightened risk of severe injury or death from COVID-19, sued to enjoin enforcement of Iowa's law prohibiting mask requirements in schools. The district court ruled that the law violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It granted a preliminary injunction completely enjoining the law.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), this Court holds that Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction because mask requirements are reasonable accommodations required by federal disability law to protect the rights of Plaintiffs’ children. However, the injunction imposed by the district court sweeps more broadly than necessary to remedy Plaintiffs’ injuries. This Court therefore vacates, in part, and remands to allow the district court to enter a tailored injunction that prohibits Defendants from preventing or delaying reasonable accommodations and ensures that Plaintiffs’ schools may provide such reasonable accommodations.
In early 2020, many schools and school districts in Iowa moved to remote learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. When they later reopened for in-person classes, the Iowa Department of Education recommended mask-wearing at schools, and many districts imposed broad mask mandates. On May 20, 2021, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed into law Iowa Code Section 280.31, prohibiting schools and school districts from requiring anyone wear masks on school grounds unless otherwise required by law. In response, all Iowa schools and school districts with mask mandates ended them. One district expressly stated it would have maintained mask requirements but for Section 280.31.
Where some Plaintiffs previously sent their children to schools with mask mandates, many withdrew their children due to the health risks, or were forced to send their children despite the risks due to no viable alternative.
Plaintiffs sued on September 3, 2021, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 - 18 ; and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("ARPA"), Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4. Plaintiffs named as Defendants Governor Reynolds, who vowed to enforce Section 280.31, and Ann Lebo, the Director of the Iowa Department of Education, which also stated it would enforce the new law. Plaintiffs also named as Defendants the ten school districts they attend. Plaintiffs primarily seek as relief (1) declaration that the Defendants’ enforcement of Section 280.31 violates the ADA and RA; (2) declaration that ARPA preempts the Iowa law and Defendants’ enforcement; and (3) a permanent injunction stopping "Defendants from enforcing [ Section 280.31 ] and thereby violating the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and ARPA." Compl. at 37, DCD 1.
The district court granted a temporary restraining order against the law on September 13, 2021. The court granted a preliminary injunction on October 8, 2021. Once Section 280.31 was enjoined, 24 school districts—including most of Plaintiffs’—reimposed some form of mask requirements. Only Defendants Reynolds and Lebo appeal the district court's entry of the preliminary injunction. They argue Plaintiffs lack standing, failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
This Court reviews de novo Plaintiffs’ standing, Miller v. Thurston , 967 F.3d 727, 734 (8th Cir. 2020), and exhaustion of administrative remedies, J.M. v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist. , 850 F.3d 944, 947 (8th Cir. 2017). This Court reviews the grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Jet Midwest Int'l Co., Ltd v. Jet Midwest Grp., LLC , 953 F.3d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir. 2020).
Plaintiffs have standing. "[A]t least one plaintiff must have standing to sue." Dep't of Com. v. New York , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2565, 204 L.Ed.2d 978 (2019). To have standing, a plaintiff must (1) "suffer[ ] an injury in fact," (2) "fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant," and (3) "likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt , 987 F.3d 1171, 1178 (8th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted). Standing is measured at the commencement of the suit; it cannot be created retroactively. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 569-70 nn.4 & 5, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Iowa League of Cities v. EPA , 711 F.3d 844, 869 (8th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiffs have demonstrated an adequate injury in fact. "Parents have standing to sue when practices and policies of a school threaten their rights and interests and those of their children." Liddell v. Special Admin. Bd. of Transitional Sch. Dist. of City of St. Louis , 894 F.3d 959, 965-66 (8th Cir. 2018). This includes parents who "allege an injury to their children's educational interests and opportunities." Id. at 965.
Plaintiffs documented that Section 280.31 ’s ban on mask requirements forces them to forgo critical educational opportunities, including in-person learning with their peers. For example, one Plaintiff's child, "S.V.," "has a brain injury
, cerebral palsy, and a history of strokes and epilepsy." Compl. ¶ 15, DCD 1. His doctors warned that contracting COVID-19 would create a "risk of severe complications," including "more severe seizures and further brain damage." Vercande Decl. ¶ 11, DCD 3-6. Because of his conditions and cognitive limitations, "he is nonverbal" and "cannot follow instructions easily" which makes it "much more difficult for him to adhere to ... wearing a mask ... so it is even more important that others wear a mask ... around him." Id. ¶ 12. Staff at his school wore masks to ensure his safety, but that policy ended when Section 280.31 took effect and his parents removed him from school to ensure his safety. Id. ¶¶ 13-16. Not attending in-person poses a "risk to [students’] physical, psychological, emotional and developmental well-being." Waddell Expert Decl. ¶ 7, DCD 3-1. Remote learning in many school districts also does not provide "even nominally equivalent educational services" to in-class education. Srinivas Expert Decl. ¶ 28, DCD 3-2. See
Basham Expert Decl. ¶¶ 17-23, DCD 48-4 ().
Other Plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial risk of bodily harm, which independently satisfies the injury requirement. See Dep't of Commerce , 139 S. Ct. at 2565 (). See also Liddell , 894 F.3d at 965 (). For example, one Plaintiff's son, "H.J.F.R.," has "congenital central hypoventilation
syndrome," which causes breathing problems and forces him to use a ventilator when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaman v. Virginia
...and policies of a school threaten their rights and interests and those of their children." Dkt. 5 at 28 (citing Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds , 24 F.4th 1162, 1169 (8th Cir. 2022) ). In this case, Plaintiffs contend that they have submitted evidence demonstrating that E.O. 2 and S.B. 739 caused "......
-
Doe v. Perkiomen Valley Sch. Dist.
...The case is therefore not a FAPE-based claim and no administrative exhaustion requirement applies. See, e.g., Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds , 24 F.4th 1162, 1175 (8th Cir. 2022) (finding that exhaustion was not required because student "d[id] not challenge the substantive quality of his education......
-
Doe by K.M. v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...that they need not exhaust because a request for masks in schools was not a request for a teaching change. See Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds , 24 F.4th 1162, 1175–76 (8th Cir. 2022), vacated as moot , 33 F.4th 1042 (8th Cir. 2022) (per curiam); but cf. E.T. v. Paxton , 19 F.4th 760, 767 (5th Cir.......
-
Wilson v. Dep't of Interior
...powers to vindicate the claim. Plaintiff has alleged further that veterans on Pine Ridge are entitled to 20 acres of land in the same tract. (Id.). Plaintiff has submitted establishing that she is a veteran, and this is sufficient to establish her standing to pursue the claim. (Doc. 1-2, Pg......
-
DISABILITY AS METAPHOR IN AMERICAN LAW.
...Virginia, No. 3:22-CV-oooo6, 2022 WL 872023, at *27 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2022). And so did the Eighth Circuit. See Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds, 24 F.4th 1162, 1167-68 (8th Cir 2022). In May 2022, the Eighth Circuit vacated as moot the district court's preliminary injunction to allow masking in sc......