Arc Iowa v. Reynolds

24 F.4th 1162

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

No. 21-3268

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 18, 2021

Filed: January 25, 2022

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.

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

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.

I.

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 (codified as amended at scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.); 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).

II.

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).

A.

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 (detailing how online learning fails some disabled students).

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 (recognizing injury requirement may be fulfilled by potential future injury if "there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur" (quoting Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , 573 U.S. 149, 158, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) )). See also Liddell , 894 F.3d at 965 (holding allegations of likely future harm from adversary winning a motion were "neither conjectural nor hypothetical and [were] sufficiently imminent to constitute an injury in fact"). 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...