Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Thursday, April 25, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Appeals court lifts injunction against Iowa ban on school mask mandates

The Eighth Circuit vacated the injunction because Covid-19 cases have declined and vaccines are widely available.

(CN) — Citing waning coronavirus cases in the Hawkeye State, an appeals court on Monday vacated as moot a federal judge’s injunction barring Iowa from enforcing a ban on mask mandates in schools.

A three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit, with one member dissenting, cited changed circumstances for vacating the injunction – and its own ruling affirming it – including wider vaccine availability and fewer Covid-19 cases.

The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings, meaning that while Iowa’s statute may be enforced, the underlying suit remains alive. Meanwhile, most if not all Iowa schools have dropped mask mandates or made masks optional in recent months.

Last year, the Iowa Legislature enacted a law prohibiting schools from requiring anyone to wear a mask on school grounds as protection against Covid-19. Parents of children with disabilities sued to prevent enforcement of the mask mandate ban, arguing it violated Title II of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt in Des Moines ruled that the ban law likely violated both federal laws and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the statute, which the Eighth Circuit upheld in January. The state subsequently sought a rehearing on that decision.

In response, an Eighth Circuit panel issued an unsigned decision Monday that vacated the injunction and the appeals court's January ruling, saying the issues in the case are moot because current conditions “differ vastly” from those that prevailed when the trial court first addressed the case.

“Covid-19 vaccines are now available to children and adolescents over the age of four, greatly decreasing plaintiffs’ children’s risk of serious bodily injury or death from contracting Covid-19 at school,” the ruling states. “Further, when plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, delta was the dominant variant, producing high transmission rates and case loads throughout the country. Now, omicron has become dominant and subsided, leaving markedly lower transmission rates and case loads throughout Iowa and the country.”

The opinion said the court “takes no position on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, which are left for future decision.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, said the majority's ruling is a “victory for the plaintiffs and disability rights” because it found Iowa’s statute banning mask mandates contains an exception for “any other provision of law,” such as the ADA, that might require masks to protect schoolchildren with disabilities.

“The decision...makes it clear that the federal ADA and Rehabilitation Act require that students with disabilities may need to be accommodated, under appropriate circumstances, by requiring masks in schools,” ACLU of Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen said in a statement Monday.

A spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on the ruling. The Iowa governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly dissented from her two colleagues – U.S. Circuit Judges Ralph Erickson, a Donald Trump appointee, and Duane Benton, appointed by George W. Bush.

Kelly, a Barack Obama appointee, said the court should not have vacated the injunction without establishing a record of evidence of the changed Covid circumstances.

“Though I agree that the Covid-19 pandemic has changed — the now-dominant variant is considered less severe on average, case counts are currently lower, CDC guidance on mask-wearing in schools has loosened, and vaccines are now available for children five years and older — I disagree that a sua sponte vacatur is the appropriate response,” she wrote.

Follow @@roxalaird16
Categories / Appeals, Education, Health, Regional

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...