Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
Decision date
16 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Use of protection devices
Vulnerability groups
  • Children
  • People with disabilities
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected

Case analisys

General Summary

The Plaintiffs were an advocacy organization supporting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and the parents of children with disabilities. The Defendants were the Governor of Iowa and the Director of the Iowa Department of Education. The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Defendants' enforcement of Iowa Code Section 280.31, which allowed schools to operate without use of face masks for protection against Covid-19, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA) by preventing schools from providing reasonable accommodations to ensure their children could access the school buildings for in-person learning. The first instance Judge granted the preliminary injunction, barring the enforcement of Section 280.3, and Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the state of the pandemic at that time did not pose a large risk and it therefore vacated the preliminary injunction as moot.

Facts of the case

The Plaintiffs' children had serious disabilities that placed them at a heightened risk of severe illness from Covid-19. After the Governor of Iowa signed Code Section 280.31 into law, Iowa schools ceased to require masks in all circumstances. Based on the Defendants' enforcement of Section 280.31, one Plaintiff's school nurse refused to voluntarily wear a mask when administering a child’s asthma inhaler and the school rejected a request to require her to do so. A teacher who worked one-on-one with a Plaintiff's child also stopped wearing a mask as well. Another Plaintiff sent her child, whose health condition causes breathing problems and requires him to use a ventilator at night, to school in person despite the absence of any Covid-19 precautions because there was no alternative. Other Plaintiffs withdrew their children from school entirely, due to the perceived health risks.

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
A Preliminary injunction to enforce schools to operate with the use of face masks to protect against Covid-19
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a specific group of claimants in their own interest for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Urgency
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed the arguments of the Plaintiffs and Defendants and took no position on the merits of the claims. The Court reasoned that the issues surrounding the preliminary injunction were moot because the current conditions differed vastly from those prevailing when the district court addressed it. It stated that vaccines were now available to children and adolescents over the age of four, greatly decreasing the risk of serious bodily injury or death from contracting Covid-19 to the Plaintiffs’ children. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that when Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, delta was the dominant Covid variant, which produced high transmission rates and caseloads across the country. However, omicron had become the dominant variant at that time and subsided, which markedly lowered transmission rates and caseloads. Finally, the Court stated that it could not grant effective relief as sought for the preliminary injunction because enjoining the Defendants’ enforcement of Section 280.31 would have no effect on the Plaintiffs’ children, whose risk of contracting Covid-19 at school was now low even without mask requirements, as was their risk of serious injury or death.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the passage of time and acts of third parties mooted the preliminary injunction.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Right to bodily integrity
  • Right to education
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  • Rehabilitation Act (RA)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. right to education
  • right to bodily integrity
Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Follow up of

United States of America, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 13 September 2021, No. 4:21-CV-00264, 2021 WL 4166728

By Chiara Naddeo on 12 June 2022
Case ID
No. 4:21-CV-00264, 2021 WL 4166728
Decision date
13 September 2021
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
Type of body
Court
Country
United States of America
Type of Court (material scope)
Sub-National Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Non-discrimination
Further areas addressed
  • Education
  • Use of protection devices
Vulnerability groups
  • Children
  • People with disabilities
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on www.documentcloud.org
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
General Summary

Plaintiffs, acting individually and on ‎behalf of their minor children living with disabilities, filed a motion ‎for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin defendants, Iowa ‎public officials, from prohibiting Iowa school districts from ‎‎“adopting, implementing, and enforcing a universal mask mandate.” ‎

The court concluded that Plaintiffs “have demonstrated that an ‎irreparable harm exists” with regards to the children’s risk of ‎contracting COVID-19. Id. at *8-*9. The court also concluded that ‎the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm exists because Iowa’s ‎ban “effectively forces medically vulnerable children to lose out on ‎much-needed educational opportunities” even though a “safe in-‎person learning option is available, i.e., in-person learning with ‎universal masking.” Id. at *8-*9. The court also determined that the ‎enforcement of the ban violates Title II of the ADA and section 504 ‎of the Rehabilitation Act, and that the plaintiffs “have met their ‎burden of showing that irreparable harm is likely” unless the court ‎enjoins Iowa’s ban. Id. at *9-*10.‎

Next, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on ‎the merits of their claims because the Iowa ban “seems to conflict ‎with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because it ‎excludes disabled children from participating in and denies them the ‎benefits of public schools’ programs, services, and activities to ‎which they are entitled.” Id. at *10-12. ‎

Finally, the court concluded that “the national public interest in ‎enforcing the ADA wins out over the state’s interest” in enforcing ‎the ban. Id. at *12-*13.‎

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining ‎order. Id. *13.‎

Facts of the case

Plaintiffs, the ARC of Iowa and parents, acting individually and on ‎behalf of their minor children living with disabilities—filed a motion ‎for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin defendants, Iowa ‎public officials, from prohibiting Iowa school districts from ‎‎“adopting, implementing, and enforcing a universal mask mandate.” “The Iowa mask mandate ‎ban provides that school districts shall not adopt, enforce, or ‎implement a policy that requires its employees, students, or members ‎of the public to wear a facial covering for any purpose while on the ‎school district’s . . . property.” Id. Plaintiffs contend that this ban ‎violates the civil rights of children with disabilities under Title II of ‎the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the ‎Rehabilitation Act because the ban fails to allow these children to ‎receive an education “in the least-restrictive and the most-integrated ‎environment—without jeopardizing their lives or safety.” Id. ‎Plaintiffs also contend that the Iowa mask mandate ban is preempted ‎by federal law. Id. ‎

Type of measure challenged
State government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Injunctive relief
Claimant(s)
Private individual
Defendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

First, the court determined that Plaintiffs had standing to bring their ‎action before the court because they alleged “a concrete and ‎particularized injury that is redressable.”

Next, the court determined that Plaintiffs were not required to ‎exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring a claim of the ‎denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the ‎Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Id. Since the ‎plaintiffs could have brought the same claim had the alleged conduct ‎occurred at a public facility that was not a school, and since an adult ‎at a public school could have brought the claims alleged by ‎Plaintiffs, “the gravamen of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not for the ‎denial of a FAPE, and the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is ‎therefore not applicable here.” Id. at *7-8.‎

The court then examined Plaintiffs’ claims that as a result of the ‎prohibition, they face “a heightened risk of exposure” to COVID-19, ‎‎“irreparable loss of educational opportunities”, and violation of their ‎rights under Title II of the ADA and section 504 of the ‎Rehabilitation Act. Id. The court analyzed these claims in turn. The ‎court cited “data concerning the effectiveness of masking” in ‎concluding that Plaintiffs “have demonstrated that an irreparable ‎harm exists” with regards to the children’s risk of contracting ‎COVID-19. Id. at *8-9. The court concluded that Plaintiffs ‎demonstrated that irreparable harm due to the loss of educational ‎opportunities because Iowa’s ban “effectively forces medically ‎vulnerable children to lose out on much-needed educational ‎opportunities” even though a “safe in-person learning option is ‎available, i.e., in-person learning with universal masking.” Id. at *9. ‎Finally, the court concluded that the enforcement of the ban violates ‎Title II of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and ‎that, because courts “presume that a violation of a civil rights statute ‎is an irreparable harm,” the plaintiffs “have met their burden of ‎showing that irreparable harm is likely” unless the court enjoins ‎Iowa’s ban. Id. at *9-*10.‎

Next, the court concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the ‎merits of their claims. Id. at *10. The court concluded that the Iowa ‎ban “seems to conflict with the ADA and section 504 of the ‎Rehabilitation Act because it excludes disabled children from ‎participating in and denies them the benefits of public schools’ ‎programs, services, and activities to which they are entitled,” and ‎thus, Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrated that they are ‎likely to succeed on the merits. Id. at *12. ‎

Finally, the court concluded that “the national public interest in ‎enforcing the ADA wins out over the state’s interest” in enforcing ‎the ban, it is “in the public’s interest to inhibit the spread of COVID-‎‎19,” “there is little harm to Defendants in enjoining” the ban, and ‎‎“[i]t is no great burden for individual school boards” to use their ‎discretion with regards to universal mask mandates. Id. at *12-13.‎

Conclusions of the deciding body

For the foregoing reasons, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a ‎temporary restraining order. ARC of Iowa v. Reynold‎s.

Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Right to education
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. right to education
General principle applied
State of emergency or necessity
Published by Marco Nicolò on 26 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 5 May 2022, No. 7:21-cv-393‎
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies