Amended July 30, 2015 Danny Homan, Steven J. Sodders, Jack Hatch, Pat Murphy, and Mark Smith v. Terry Branstad, Governor, State of Iowa, and Charles M. Palmer, Director, Iowa Department of Human Services
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 63
| Iowa | 2015

Background

  • In June 2013 the Iowa Legislature appropriated $8,859,355 (and 114 FTEs) for operation of the Iowa Juvenile Home (IJH) for FY2014; the Governor created a task force after reports of improper seclusion/restraint.
  • The task force issued recommendations in October 2013 recommending changes (stop admitting CINA youth; replace cottages if IJH continued to serve delinquent girls) but did not explicitly order closure.
  • In December 2013 the Director of DHS announced closure of the IJH and plans to place the 21 residents in alternative, court-approved placements; layoffs were scheduled.
  • In January 2014 AFSCME Council 61 (union president Homan) and four legislators sued the Governor and DHS Director alleging an unconstitutional impoundment of the FY2014 appropriation and sought declaratory relief and an injunction to keep IJH open.
  • The district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, found plaintiffs had standing, and entered a temporary injunction preventing closure. The Supreme Court granted interlocutory review, stayed the injunction, and during appeal the Legislature substantially reduced FY2015 funding for IJH (effectively ending operational funding).
  • The Iowa Supreme Court concluded the dispute was moot because the Legislature did not appropriate funds to continue IJH operations for FY2015 and vacated the injunction, remanding with instructions to dismiss.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether plaintiffs had standing to sue over impoundment of an appropriation Homan (union) asserted injury from layoffs; legislators asserted injury to their legislative intent; all asserted taxpayer/resident/citizen interests Defendants argued plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim District court found standing; Supreme Court did not resolve standing because case was moot and dismissed the action
Whether the Governor/DHS unlawfully impounded FY2014 appropriation by closing IJH Plaintiffs: refusal to spend the appropriated funds was an unconstitutional impoundment violating art. IV, § 9 (take care that laws are faithfully executed) Defendants: statutory discretion, appropriation language (“or so much thereof as is necessary”), and other statutory duties justified spending less/closing IJH Supreme Court declined to reach merits due to mootness; did not decide whether impoundment occurred
Whether temporary injunction preventing closure should stand pending appeal Plaintiffs: injunction necessary to prevent irreparable harm and protect legislative intent Defendants: plaintiffs failed to meet injunction standards; injunction intruded on executive/legislative prerogatives Supreme Court stayed injunction on interlocutory review and ultimately vacated it as moot after FY2015 appropriation change
Whether a mootness exception (public-importance) warranted deciding the constitutional question Plaintiffs implied public importance due to separation-of-powers issue Defendants argued case became moot and should be dismissed Court found the issue important but concluded the public-importance exception did not apply and dismissed as moot

Key Cases Cited

  • Godfrey v. State, 752 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2008) (standing review and state constitutional challenges)
  • Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2004) (taxpayer standing in separation-of-powers contexts)
  • Women Aware v. Reagen, 331 N.W.2d 88 (Iowa 1983) (mootness where legislature retroactively changed appropriation)
  • Wengert v. Branstad, 474 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 1991) (declining to decide moot line-item veto case where practical dispute ended)
  • Maghee v. State, 773 N.W.2d 228 (Iowa 2009) (public-importance exception to mootness)
  • Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 2002) (applying public-importance exception where issue likely to recur and evade review)
  • Colton v. Branstad, 372 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1985) (appropriation expiry renders line-item veto disputes moot)
  • Rochester Pure Waters Dist. v. EPA, 960 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (federal equitable extension of budget authority limited; courts cannot restore rescinded appropriations)
  • W. Side Org. Health Servs. Corp. v. Thompson, 404 N.E.2d 208 (Ill. 1980) (Illinois Supreme Court: impoundment claim moot when appropriation lapsed)
Read the full case