Hirth v. Iowa Utilities Commission, 6:24-cv-02046

Plaintiffs—landowners, organizations, and an unincorporated association—challenged the Iowa Utilities Commission’s (IUC) approval of Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC’s interstate carbon dioxide pipeline.
Plaintiffs alleged federal constitutional violations (Due Process, Takings, Supremacy Clause) and state law violations in the permitting and eminent domain process.
The IUC issued a final permit decision after public hearings; several plaintiffs claimed they were denied meaningful participation or process during the proceedings.
Defendants (IUC, its members, and Summit Carbon) moved to dismiss based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity, standing, ripeness) and failure to state a claim.
The court evaluated whether federal jurisdiction was proper, if procedural due process was denied, and whether plaintiffs could seek relief for alleged Takings Clause violations in federal court.
Ultimately, the court granted both motions to dismiss, finding jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies for all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sovereign immunity barring federal judicial review of IUC action	IUC exceeded authority, so immunity doesn’t apply	State hasn’t consented to federal suit under Iowa judicial review statute	Challenge barred by Eleventh Amendment; must proceed in state court
Takings Clause claim against IUC & its members	IUC permit approval creates imminent threat of taking & justifies federal action	Adequate state remedy (inverse condemnation) exists; sovereign immunity bars suit	Barred by sovereign immunity; remedy lies in state court
Takings Clause claim against Summit Carbon	Summit is a state actor for takings purposes due to IUC permit	No property has been taken yet; claims not ripe; Summit isn’t a state actor	Not ripe & no standing due to availability of state remedy
Procedural due process violations in permit hearings	Plaintiffs weren't given meaningful hearing or chance to testify	Plaintiffs had notice, could (and did) participate; opportunity provided	No procedural due process violation; plaintiffs' dissatisfaction is with outcome, not process

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for plausibility on a motion to dismiss)
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (exception to sovereign immunity for suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional requirements for standing)
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 588 U.S. 180 (ripe takings claims in federal court upon taking without compensation)
Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635 (Ex Parte Young inquiry focuses on prospective relief for ongoing violations)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (requirement for pre-deprivation process in due process claims)