Shellem v. Gruneweld

535 P.3d 1208

Brian and Janelle SHELLEM, Husband and Wife, individually and on behalf of their Minor Children, C.S. and M.S.; Brett and Emilie Garrelts, Husband and Wife, individually and on behalf of their Minor Child, B.G.; and Gray and Theresa Epperly, Husband and Wife, individually and on behalf of their Minor Children, L.E., C.E., O.E., and M.E., Plaintiffs/Appellees,

v.Angela GRUNEWELD, Superintendent of Edmond Public Schools, and Edmond Board of Education Members Jamie Underwood, Cynthia Benson, Kathleen Duncan, Lee Ann Kuhlman, and Meredith Exline, sued in their official and individual capacities, Defendants/Appellants.

No. 120,131

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Filed March 28, 2023

Rehearing Denied: September 11, 2023

Stanley M. Ward, Noble, Oklahoma, and Richard Labarthe and Alexey Tarasov, LABARTHE & TARASOV, a professional association, Norman and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Plaintiffs/Appellees.

F. Andrew Fugitt and Justin C. Cliburn, THE CENTER FOR EDUCATION LAW, a professional association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Defendants/Appellants.

ROWE, V.C.J.:

I. BACKGROUND

¶1 During the summer of 2021, Appellants, Edmond Public School Board Members and Edmond Public School District Superintendent, Angela Grunewald, (collectively "District") anticipated a complete return to in-person instruction for the 2021-2022 school year. Prior to the start of the school year, the Oklahoma City County Health Department ("OCCHD") expressed to District that quarantines should be recommended rather than required. In response, District prepared a standard letter that alerted parents when their child was exposed to a positive COVID-19 case, which left the responsibility "for carrying out a quarantine or not" up to the parents.¹ School began on Thursday, August 12, 2021. By the fourth day of school, District reported 140 positive cases of COVID-19 which rose to 170 positive cases on the fifth day of the school year.

¶2 Based on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"), OCCHD informed District that individuals deemed a "close contact"² should quarantine in light of the drastic spike of positive COVID-19 cases within the first week of the school year. OCCHD strongly recommended close contacts quarantine for 7-10 days unless (A) the close contact was vaccinated against COVID-19 or (B) the close contact had tested positive in the previous 90 days (the "Policy"). The following day, District implemented a policy consistent with OCCHD's recommendation and informed parents of the Policy by email.³

¶3 The Policy provided that a vaccinated close contact was not required to quarantine unless he or she displayed symptoms, but an unvaccinated close contact that had not tested positive within ninety days was required to quarantine. In the case of being identified as a close contact, the unvaccinated individual was presented with two options for quarantine: (1) a 7-day quarantine, in which the individual may return to school on day 8 if he or she provides a negative COVID-19 test on or after day 5 and continues to remain symptom free; or (2) a 10-day quarantine, in which the individual may return to school on or after day 11 if he or she remains symptom free.

¶4 As a result of the Policy, several unvaccinated students were required to quarantine due to being identified as a close contact. The Appellees, parents of children enrolled in Edmond Public Schools affected by the Policy ("Parents"), individually and on behalf of their children, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") in the District Court of Oklahoma County. Parents alleged the Policy violated: (1) 70 O.S. § 1210.189(A)(1) ; (2) their children's Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process; and (3) their children's First Amendment right to freely assemble. District objected, and the TRO was denied.

¶5 Following denial of the TRO, the trial court heard testimony on Parents' Petition for Injunctive Relief. A week later, the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of granting Parents' Injunction on the basis that the Policy violates 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1). District objected to the filing of the brief, but the trial court granted the Attorney General's motion. The trial court denied relief on all three counts pleaded in the Petition, but granted a Temporary Injunction based on Parents' Equal Protection Clause argument and enjoined District from implementing or enforcing the Policy.

¶6 District timely appealed raising five counts of error relating to the trial court's Equal Protection analysis and inconsistencies of the trial court's order concerning evidence of irreparable harm. In addition, the Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief with consent of the parties suggesting to the Court that while the trial court properly enjoined District from enforcing the Policy, the trial court improperly interpreted 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1). Neither Parents nor District filed a response to the Attorney General's amicus brief. We retained the matter for review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 To obtain a temporary injunction, a plaintiff must show that four factors weigh in his or her favor: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm to the party seeking the relief if the injunction is denied; (3) their threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Edwards v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Canadian Cnty. , 2015 OK 58, ¶ 12, 378 P.3d 54, 59. "The right to injunctive relief must be established by clear and convincing evidence and the nature of the injury must not be nominal, theoretical, or speculative." Id .

¶8 "A judgment issuing or refusing to issue an injunction will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court has abused its discretion or the decision is clearly against the weight of the evidence." Id. ¶ 11, 378 P.3d at 58. "To reverse under an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court must find the trial court's conclusions and judgment were clearly erroneous, against reason and evidence." Murlin v. Pearman , 2016 OK 47, ¶ 17, 371 P.3d 1094, 1097. We will consider all the evidence on appeal to determine whether the trial court's granting of a temporary injunction was an abuse of discretion. Dowell v. Pletcher , 2013 OK 50, ¶ 5, 304 P.3d 457, 460.

¶9 "[A] clear abuse of discretion standard includes appellate review of both fact and law issues: ‘In order to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion, a review of the facts and the law is essential.’ " Christian v. Gray , 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43, 65 P.3d 591, 608 (quoting Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 1977 OK 17, ¶ 3, 561 P.2d 499, 502 ). Underlying questions of law are reviewed de novo . Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp ., 2006 OK 47, ¶ 16, 139 P.3d 897, 903. An issue presented in this cause is one of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law which this Court reviews under a de novo standard. Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage, Guarantee Ins. , 2017 OK 71, ¶ 10, 404 P.3d 856, 858.

¶10 The trial court determined Parents were likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection Clause claim against District but were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Policy violated 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1). We find the trial court improperly interpreted § 1210.189(A)(1) and incorrectly concluded Parents were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Policy violates § 1210.189(A)(1). Because we determine the Policy violates 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1), we need not address the Equal Protection Clause argument.

III. DISCUSSION

¶11 On March 15, 2020, Oklahoma Governor, J. Kevin Stitt, declared a statewide emergency due to the coronavirus pandemic and its threat to the people of this State and their peace, health, and safety.⁴ The Governor rescinded his emergency declaration on May 3, 2021.⁵ Subsequently, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 658 in May of 2021, which was signed into law on May 28, 2021.

¶12 Senate Bill 658 made additions and amendments to school health and safety statutes within 70 O.S.2011, §§ 1210.191 - 1210.194. Specifically, Senate Bill 658 created two new sections, 70 O.S.Supp.2021, §§ 1210.189 and 190.⁶ The relevant section here is § 1210.189. Section 1210.189 concerns restrictions on a school district's ability to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations and mask mandates. More specifically, § 1210.189 provides:

A. A board of education of a public school district or a technology center school district, the board of regents of an institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, the governing board of a private postsecondary educational institution, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, the State Board of Education or the State Board of Career and Technology Education shall not:

1. Require a vaccination against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a condition of admittance to or attendance of the school or institution;

2. Require a vaccine passport as a condition of admittance to or attendance of the school or institution; or

3. Implement a mask mandate for students who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B. As used in this section, "vaccine passport" means documentation that an individual has been vaccinated against COVID-19.

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to any public or private healthcare setting.

The subsection at issue before us is § 1210.189(A)(1).

¶13 Before the trial court, Parents and the Attorney General argued the Policy violates § 1210.189(A)(1) because the Policy's quarantine requirement for unvaccinated students effectively excludes those students from attending school due to their COVID-19 vaccination status. District made several arguments in response...