Wymore v. Cedar Rapids, City of, 635 F.Supp.3d 706

Cedar Rapids adopted an ordinance creating a nine-member Citizen Review Board; Section 74.02(A)(1)(a) requires a minimum of five voting members who identify as "people of color."
The ordinance also prescribes appointment categories (general public, an attorney, applicants from certain advocacy organizations, service-provider nominees) and states purposes including accountability, transparency, and identifying policing trends.
Kevin Wymore (white) applied twice for the Board and was not selected; he alleges the Provision prevented him from even being considered for five of the nine seats.
Wymore moved for a preliminary injunction (challenging only Section 74.02(A)(1)(a)); the City defended, arguing the Provision is not a racial classification and that revisions were forthcoming.
The court applied the Dataphase preliminary-injunction factors, found Wymore had standing, concluded the Provision is a racial quota subject to strict scrutiny, and granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of § 74.02(A)(1)(a) during the litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Irreparable harm	Denial of constitutional right (equal protection) is per se irreparable.	No irreparable harm; Provision soon to be revised and plaintiff can apply to other boards.	Court: Irreparable harm shown — being excluded from consideration for five seats is a present, non-speculative injury.
Balance of harms	(Not separately argued)	(No substantive argument)	Court: Favors injunction — City can still fill seats and interests are preserved; harm to plaintiff ongoing without injunction.
Likelihood of success / Standing	Provision is a racial quota; triggers strict scrutiny; lacks tailoring or compelling justification.	Provision not a racial classification ("identify as" distinction); plaintiff lacks standing and causation; selection based on qualifications.	Court: Wymore has standing; Provision is a racial quota subject to strict scrutiny; likely to succeed because interests, though potentially compelling, are not narrowly tailored.
Public interest	Preventing constitutional violations serves public interest.	(No substantive argument)	Court: Public interest favors injunction — the Provision discriminates and its aims can be achieved without a race-based quota.

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (movant must show likelihood of irreparable harm)
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (race-conscious measures are subject to strict scrutiny; race may be a factor if narrowly tailored)
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (diversity can be a compelling interest in certain contexts)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
E.L. by White v. Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corp., 864 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2017) (policy using "identifies as" language can constitute a race-based classification)
Kohlbek v. City of Omaha, 447 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2006) (remedying proven past discrimination can be a compelling government interest)