24 F.4th 1162
8th Cir.2022Background
- Iowa enacted Iowa Code § 280.31 (May 20, 2021), forbidding schools from requiring masks on school grounds; many districts ended mask mandates as a result.
- Plaintiffs (Arc of Iowa and parents of children with disabilities at heightened COVID-19 risk) alleged the law and its enforcement prevented schools from adopting masking accommodations, forcing children to choose between health and in-person education.
- Plaintiffs sued under the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and ARPA; the district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of § 280.31.
- Defendants (Governor Reynolds and Iowa Dept. of Education Director Lebo) appealed, arguing lack of standing, failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies, and abuse of discretion in granting the injunction.
- The Eighth Circuit: (1) found Plaintiffs have standing and need not exhaust IDEA remedies; (2) held Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claim because masking can be a reasonable accommodation; (3) concluded § 280.31 permits compliance with federal law and is not conflict-preempted; but (4) vacated the district court’s injunction in part as overbroad and remanded to craft a tailored injunction limited to Plaintiffs’ schools/districts.
- Judge Erickson dissented, arguing the IDEA exhaustion requirement should apply and the injunction was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (injury, traceability, redressability) | Plaintiffs’ children face imminent heightened risk of severe COVID or educational loss; harms caused by § 280.31’s predictable effect on schools; injunction would redress harms | § 280.31 permits masks when required by federal law, so Plaintiffs lack traceable injury | Plaintiffs have standing: injuries concrete and imminent, caused by predictable third‑party response, and likely redressable by enjoining enforcement as applied |
| IDEA administrative exhaustion | Claims are about physical access/safety (like wheelchair ramps) not denial of FAPE; Fry gravamen test permits bypassing exhaustion | Plaintiffs should exhaust IDEA because claims implicate educational access and FAPE | Exhaustion not required; gravamen focuses on safe physical access and could be asserted against non‑school public facilities or by adults |
| Merits — Rehabilitation Act reasonable accommodation & preemption | Mask requirements are reasonable, not a fundamental alteration or undue burden; § 280.31 does not prohibit masks required by federal law | Accommodations sought are unreasonable and § 280.31 controls | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on RA failure‑to‑accommodate claim; § 280.31’s plain language excepts compliance with "any other provision of law," so it does not conflict‑preempt federal disability law |
| Scope of preliminary injunction | Enjoin enforcement so Plaintiffs’ schools can provide mask accommodations | Broad statewide injunction exceeds what is necessary and harms comity | Preliminary injunction warranted but must be narrowly tailored: bar enforcement only insofar as it prevents or delays reasonable accommodations for Plaintiffs’ schools/districts; district court’s statewide injunction was overbroad and is vacated in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (establishes the "gravamen" test for whether IDEA exhaustion is required)
- Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (traceability may be satisfied by predictable effect of government action on third parties)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and timing; redressability standard)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four‑factor preliminary injunction standard)
- DeBord v. Bd. of Educ. of Ferguson‑Florissant Sch. Dist., 126 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 1997) (reasonable‑accommodation standard under Section 504)
- Buckles v. First Data Res., Inc., 176 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 1999) (accommodations imposing restrictions on third parties can be reasonable)
- E.T. v. Paxton, 19 F.4th 760 (5th Cir. 2021) (contrasting holding on standing for mask‑ban challenges)