568 F.Supp.3d 895
M.D. Tenn.2021Background
- Plaintiffs are two public-school students with serious underlying health conditions (R.K., a 13‑year‑old with Down syndrome; W.S., a 7‑year‑old with type‑1 diabetes) who say they face heightened risk of severe COVID‑19 at school.
- Governor Lee issued Executive Order No. 84 letting any parent opt their K–12 child out of school mask mandates by written notice, with no reason required; schools (Williamson County and Franklin) amended prior universal mask mandates to comply.
- Large opt‑out rates followed (≈32% in Williamson County; ≈10% in Franklin), and schools reported substantial weekly COVID‑19 isolations among students and staff during the fall 2021 Delta surge.
- Plaintiffs sued under Title II of the ADA and Section 504, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of EO 84 in the two school systems so universal masking could be maintained as a reasonable accommodation.
- After an evidentiary hearing with conflicting expert testimony, the court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, established imminent/irreparable harm, and enjoined enforcement of EO 84 in Williamson County and prevented parental opt‑outs in the two school systems pending trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Plaintiffs face imminent increased risk of severe COVID‑19 traceable to EO 84 because opt‑outs increased unmasked classmates. | EO 84 did not cause plaintiffs' injury; risk is speculative and not fairly traceable to the Executive Order. | Plaintiffs have standing: injury is imminent and fairly traceable to EO 84 (opt‑out rates and school admissions make harm real). |
| ADA/Section 504 — failure to accommodate / meaningful access | Universal masking is a reasonable, effective modification necessary for disabled students to access in‑person education; EO 84 prevents schools from providing that accommodation. | Other accommodations (virtual learning, ventilation, distancing) suffice; masks are ineffective and imposing them would fundamentally alter policy. | Likely success: EO 84 denies meaningful access; universal masking is a reasonable accommodation and would not fundamentally alter school programs. |
| IDEA exhaustion | Plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies before relief. | Plaintiffs did not pursue IEP/504 team remedies; IDEA exhaustion required. | IDEA exhaustion not required because relief sought is not a claim for denial of a FAPE but to remedy discrimination under ADA/Section 504 caused by EO 84. |
| Irreparable harm / public interest | Continued exposure to COVID‑19 presents irreparable risk of severe illness or death; public interest favors enforcing federal anti‑discrimination law and public health measures. | Injunction would override parental choices and disrupt democratic policy decisions. | Irreparable harm established; public interest favors injunctive relief to protect health and enforce ADA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing minimum requirements)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief requiring clear showing)
- Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending trial)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015) (Supremacy Clause bars state action that conflicts with federal law)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (limits when IDEA exhaustion is required versus statutory claims under ADA/Section 504)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (traceability in standing need not be strict causation)
- Vitolo v. Guzman, 999 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2021) (factors for preliminary injunction and balancing)
- McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1997) (failure‑to‑accommodate framework under ADA)
- Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004) (Title II reasonable‑modification and meaningful access principles)