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
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
- Children
- People with disabilities
Outcome of the decision
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
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private collectiveDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
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.
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
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
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Country
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Instance
Area
Further areas addressed
- Education
- Use of protection devices
Vulnerability groups
- Children
- People with disabilities
Link to the full text of the decision
Outcome of the decision
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
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Claimant(s)
Defendant(s)
Type of procedure
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.
