970 N.W.2d 289
Iowa2022Background
- In March 2020 Governor Reynolds issued COVID-19 public-health disaster proclamations and restrictions; on August 27, 2020 she issued a temporary order closing bars and taverns in six counties through September 20.
- Six Polk/Dallas county bars filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging the Governor lacked statutory authority and violated state constitutional due process and equal protection principles.
- The district court denied a temporary injunction on September 4, 2020; the Governor lifted the targeted closures for most counties on September 15 and the challenged restrictions therefore ceased to apply to the plaintiffs.
- The Governor moved to dismiss as moot; on November 16, 2020 the district court dismissed the injunctive/declaratory claims as moot and, alternatively, dismissed for failure to state a claim (finding the proclamations lawful).
- The Iowa Supreme Court retained the appeal, concluded the controversy was moot, declined to apply the voluntary-cessation or public-importance exceptions, and affirmed the dismissal without addressing the merits; the Governor’s public-health proclamation later lapsed in February 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness — is the case moot after the closures ended? | Bars: Injunctive/declaratory relief still warranted; the dispute remains live because restrictions could return. | Gov: Restrictions ended; nothing left to enjoin; case is moot. | Case is moot; parties agree closures ended and bars reopened. |
| Voluntary-cessation exception — did the Governor rescind to moot litigation? | Bars: Rescission was motivated by litigation; exception should apply. | Gov: Order expired by its own terms and was temporary; no evidence rescission was to evade review. | Exception not applied; court found no indication the rescission was to avoid adjudication. |
| Public-importance exception — should court decide despite mootness? | Bars: Issues are of public importance; an authoritative ruling is needed for future guidance. | Gov: Pandemic facts and legal landscape have changed; issues unlikely to recur in same form. | Exception not applied; factual/legal landscape changed, recurrence in same form unlikely. |
| Merits of statutory/constitutional claims (29C.6, 135.144, equal protection, due process) | Bars: Order exceeded statutory emergency powers and violated constitutional rights by singling out bars/counties. | Gov: Proclamations cited pandemic facts; measures were reasonable, tailored, and rationally related to public health. | Not reached on appeal; district court alternatively found the proclamations lawful and did not violate statute or constitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary-cessation doctrine prevents mootness when defendant may resume challenged conduct)
- Homan v. Branstad, 864 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 2015) (public-importance mootness exception and factors for its application)
- Baehne v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Manly, 207 N.W. 755 (Iowa 1926) (mootness where challenged emergency measure had long since expired)
- Big Tyme Invs., L.L.C. v. Edwards, 985 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2021) (declining dismissal when legal issue between bars and restaurants persisted across orders)
- Bos. Bit Labs, Inc. v. Baker, 11 F.4th 3 (1st Cir. 2021) (voluntary-cessation and mootness in COVID-19 order challenges)
- Wengert v. Branstad, 474 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 1991) (caution against issuing advisory opinions on authority of a coequal branch)