E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
Iowa State Education Association and
Iowa City Community School District,

)
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Kim Reynolds, ex rel. State of Iowa;
)
Iowa Department of Education; and Ann )
Lebo, in her official capacity as Director )
of the Iowa Department of Education,
)
)
Respondents.
)

No. CVCV081968
RULING

Hearing took place on September 3, 2020 on Petitioners’ request for emergency
temporary injunctive relief. Appearances were made by Attorneys Charles Holland, Christy
Hickman, Crystal Raiber, and Katherine Schoolen for Petitioners, and by the Iowa Solicitor
General, Attorney Jeff Thompson, for Respondents. Having considered the file, relevant case
law, and written arguments of counsel, the Court hereby enters the following ruling.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioners filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief on August 19,
2020. Petitioner Iowa State Education Association (ISEA) describes itself as a statewide
nonprofit membership organization headquartered in Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa,
representing more than 30,000 members, the majority of whom are employees of public schools
throughout Iowa. The ISEA’s mission is to “promote quality public education by placing
students at the center of everything [ISEA does] while advocating for education professionals.”
ISEA states it is suing Respondents on behalf of ISEA members, who ISEA claims will be
adversely affected by Respondents’ actions. Petitioner Iowa City Community School District
(ICCSD) describes itself as a school corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Iowa. ICCSD states it serves approximately 14,000 students, and employs
approximately 2,250 staff members. ICCSD points out that Johnson County, Iowa has a
population of approximately 151,000, and is home to the University of Iowa, which has a student
enrollment of approximately 32,500. ICCSD also claims it will be adversely affected by
Respondents’ actions.
Petitioners challenge Senate File 2310, which was passed by the Iowa Legislature and
signed into law on June 29, 2020 by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds. Additionally, in response to
the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency, Governor Reynolds has issued a series of
“Proclamations of Disaster Emergency,” and Iowa Department of Education Director Ann Lebo
has issued guidance regarding the reopening of schools, applying and interpreting Senate File
2310 and other state laws. In her Proclamations of Disaster Emergency, Governor Reynolds
recommended on March 15, 2020 that all Iowa schools should close for a period of four weeks to
help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, and schools ultimately were closed for the remainder of
1

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

the regularly scheduled school year. Other facilities and venues also were closed by the
Governor during this time period, and the Governor also directed Iowans to practice social
distancing. The Iowa Department of Education issued Return-to-Learn guidance on May 8,
2020, which included goals for Iowa school districts to ensure that remote learning options are
available for students, and to enable schools to move between on-site and remote learning, as
needed.
The Return-to-Learn guidance provides three permissible options to school districts for
instruction of students during the 2020-21 school year: (a) fully remote, which was described as
“Required Continuous Learning”; (b) on-site delivery of instruction in brick and mortar
buildings; and (c) a hybrid learning plan, combining remote and on-site instruction. Each school
district in Iowa was instructed to have a plan for fully remote instruction, and was given the
option of using the on-site or hybrid models. Additionally, school districts were advised that the
Department of Education could award credit to students for coursework completed under any of
the three options in the Return-to-Learn plan. “Required Continuous Learning” was described
by the Department of Education as ensuring “that academic work is equivalent in effort and rigor
to typical classroom work. All students are required to participate, attendance is taken, work is
graded, and credit is granted. Typically, instruction is provided through some type of online
learning.” “Required Continuous Learning” was permitted to “include online education, home
delivery or pick-up of educational resources, online or telephonic check-ins or other innovative
methods.”
Petitioners claim that, in compliance with this guidance, school boards, superintendents
and principals, teachers, and support personnel worked countless hours during May, June, and
July, 2020, to develop the required Return-to-Learn plans best suited to the needs of their
individual school districts and which would allow the students and staff or their districts to
commence the 2020-2021 school year in the safest manner possible. Petitioners also claim that
the plans of Iowa school boards were submitted to the Department of Education in compliance
with the Return-to-Learn guidance.
Senate File 2310 was passed on June 13, 2020, and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
3. a. For the school year beginning July 1, 2020, and ending June 30, 2021, any
instruction provided in accordance with a return-to-learn plan submitted by a school
district or accredited nonpublic school to the department of education in response to a
proclamation of a public health disaster emergency, issued by the governor pursuant to
section 29C.6 and related to COVID-19, shall be deemed to meet the requirements of
subsection 1, regardless of the nature, location, or medium of instruction if the return-tolearn plan contains the minimum number of days or hours as required by subsection 1.
Any return-to-learn plan submitted by a school district or accredited nonpublic school
must contain provisions for in-person instruction and provide that in-person instruction is
the presumed method of instruction.
b.
…

This subsection is repealed on July 1, 2021.

2

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Sec. 15. INSTRUCTIONAL TIME PROVISIONS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
ACCREDITED NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE 2020-2021 SCHOOL YEAR.
1.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the instructional time
requirements of section 279.10, subsection 1, and the minimum school day requirements
of section 256.7, subsection 19, shall not be waived any time during the school year
beginning July 1, 2020, and ending June 30, 2021, for school closure due to the COVID19 pandemic unless the school district or the authorities in charge of the accredited
nonpublic school, as appropriate, provide compulsory remote learning, including online
learning, electronic learning, distance learning, or virtual learning. Unless explicitly
authorized in a proclamation of a public health disaster emergency issued by the governor
pursuant to section 29C.6 and related to COVID-19, a brick-and-mortar school district or
accredited nonpublic school shall not take action to provide instruction primarily through
remote-learning opportunities.
2.
If the board of directors of a school district or the authorities in charge of an
accredit nonpublic school determines any time during the school year beginning July 1,
2020, and ending June 30, 2021, that a remote-learning period is necessary, the school
board or the authorities in charge of an accredited nonpublic school, as appropriate, shall
ensure that teachers and other necessary school staff are available during the remotelearning period to support students, to participate in professional development
opportunities, and to perform other job-related functions during the regular, required
contract hours, even if the accessibility to or by the teachers and other necessary school
staff is offered remotely.
On July 14, 2020, ICCSD announced plans to open the 2020-21 school year remotely.
On July 17, 2020, Governor Reynolds issued a new Proclamation of Disaster, stating that brick
and mortar school districts or accredited nonpublic schools were authorized to provide
instruction primarily through remote learning opportunities only in circumstances where there is
parental consent; approved temporary school building or district closure; temporary remote
learning for individual students or classrooms; or temporary remote learning because of
inclement weather. Governor Reynolds announced that remote instruction exceeding fifty
percent would violate Senate File 2310. Petitioners believe this is based on the use of
“primarily” in Senate File 2310. On July 30, 2020, the Department of Education published
criteria for granting permission to close a school building, which includes the school district
meeting a threshold of 10% student absence rate, and the county in which the district is located
must have a 15-20% positivity rate in testing. Petitioners believe that even if these thresholds are
met, only closure of school events and communal spaces is authorized, and school building or
district closure is authorized only when the positivity rate for testing in the county where the
district is located is at or above 20%. ICCSD has requested permission from the Department of
Education to waive these requirements, and the request has been denied.
Petitioners claim that the July 17, 2020 Proclamation is unconstitutional and in violation
of Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the Iowa Constitution. Petitioners assert that the July 17, 2020
Proclamation undermines and unnecessarily interferes with the basic right of all Iowans secured
by the first two sections of the Iowa Constitution to enjoy their guarantee, through their
3

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

government, of protection and security from the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioners further assert
that the actions and inactions of Respondents place in severe and needless jeopardy the basic
right of the citizens of Iowa to defend their health and their lives, and to continue their pursuit
and attainment of happiness.
Petitioners’ next argument is that Iowa law and Senate File 2310 grant to school districts
the exclusive right to determine when remote learning is necessary and do not require school
districts to provide at least half of their instruction to be in-person during any two-week period.
Petitioners assert that the July 17, 2020 Proclamation deprives the right of school districts to
“determine” when “a remote-learning period is necessary”; deprives the right of school districts
to draft and implement Return-to-Learn plans which are flexible and responsive to the safety of
students, staff, families, and the communities in which the individual school districts reside; and
the July 17, 2020 Proclamation and reopening guidance from the Department of Education
prevent school districts from developing and implementing Return-to-Learn plans wherein the
“presumed method of instruction” is “in-person instruction” and without “tak[ing] action to
provide instruction primarily through remote-learning opportunities.”
Next, Petitioners argue that Governor Reynolds’ July 17, 2020 Proclamation, requiring
school districts to provide at least half of student instruction to be in-person during any two-week
period, exceeded her constitutional and statutory authority. Petitioners contend the action
unlawfully usurps the authority of school districts under Iowa Code §§ 274.1 and 274.3, and
unjustifiably prevents school districts from assuring safe conditions upon reopening.
Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment that the July 17, 2020 Proclamation, as
interpreted to require public school districts to deliver in-person instruction, violates the Iowa
Constitution and other Iowa laws. Petitioners also seek an expedited injunction prohibiting
Respondents from any enforcement activities or taking punitive measures against any school
district for formulating and effectuating their individual Return-to-Learn plans in their districts
that are inconsistent with the relevant portions of the July 17, 2020 Proclamation or the relevant
portions of Senate File 2310.
In support of the Petition, Petitioners have submitted the May 8, 2020 and July 30, 2020
Return-to-Learn Guidance from the Iowa Department of Education (Exhibits 1 and 2); “Public
health criteria to adjust public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19,” as issued
by the World Health Organization (Exhibit 3); and ISEA’s “Checklist for Safely and Equitably
Reopening Schools and Campus Buildings.” Petitioners also have submitted affidavits from Dr.
Austin Baeth, MD; Dr. Megan Srinivas, M.D., M.P.H.; and Michael Beranek.
Respondents have resisted the request for an expedited injunction. In support of their
Resistance, Respondents have submitted Governor Reynolds’ June 29, 2020 approval of SF2310
(Exhibit A); Governor Reynolds’ July 17, 2020 Proclamation of Disaster Emergency (Exhibit
B); SF 2310 Guidance for Schools (Exhibit C); August 5, 2020 letter from Director Lebo to Matt
Degner, Interim Superintendent of ICCSD (Exhibit D); August 26, 2020 letter from Director
Lebo to Superintendent Degner (Exhibit E); Affidavit of Caitlin Pedati, State of Iowa, Iowa
Department of Health, State Epidemiologist and Public Health Medical Director (Exhibit F);
Affidavit of Amy J. Williamson, State of Iowa, Iowa Department of Education, Bureau Chief for
4

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

School Improvement (Exhibit G); and Affidavit of Melissa Walker, Registered Nurse and
Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (Exhibit H).
By way of background facts, Respondents state that Iowa Code chapters 29C and 135
provide the Iowa Governor with extensive powers to respond to a public health disaster
emergency that threatens the lives and livelihoods of Iowans. Respondents further state that in
March, 2020, Governor Reynolds issued the first of many Proclamations of Disaster Emergency
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Respondents claim Governor Reynolds used the broad
powers entrusted to her to temporarily close many businesses to prevent the spread of COVID19; she prohibited, for a time, gatherings of more than ten people; and in April, 2020, she closed
Iowa public and nonpublic schools for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year. Respondents
note that the Iowa Legislature suspended its session in March, 2020, to avoid the spread of
COVID-19, and the Legislature returned in June, 2020 to finish its shortened session, at which
time SF 2310 was passed, to, as Respondents put it, allow school districts flexibility as they
planned the return to school while the pandemic continued. Respondents state that on July 17,
2020, Governor Reynolds explicitly authorized school districts to provide instruction primarily
through remote learning in four situations: when a child’s parent or guardian chooses remote
instruction for that child; when the Iowa Department of Education, in consultation with the
Department of Public Health, approves a district to do so temporarily because of public health
conditions in the district; when the district determines that a student or classroom must move
online temporarily because of public health conditions; and during inclement weather.
Respondents claim that if Governor Reynolds had not issued a Proclamation granting permission
to districts to provide instruction primarily through remote learning in some circumstances, then
under the terms of SF 2310, districts would not have been permitted to provide primarily remote
learning at any time.
Respondents state that on the same day the Governor issued the Proclamation, the
Department of Education provided guidance to Iowa school districts on SF 2310 and the
Governor’s Proclamation. Respondents assert the guidance explained that SF 2310’s prohibition
on taking action to provide instruction primarily through remote learning meant that a school
cannot provide more than half its instruction to students through remote learning opportunities
except in the situations authorized by the Governor, and subsequent Department of Education
guidance informed districts when requests to temporarily provide instruction primarily through
remote-learning opportunities would be approved. Respondents described this as happening
when COVID-19 transmission in a county or counties is substantial, as reflected in a 15% or
greater positivity rate in testing over the preceding 14 days and 10% absenteeism among students
expected for in-person learning; at these rates, the Department of Education may approve a
district to temporarily provide instruction primarily through remote learning. Respondents assert
that, where COVID-19 transmission is minimal to moderate, districts must continue to provide
on-site learning.
Respondents acknowledge that, on August 3, 2020, ICCSD requested permission to
provide instruction primarily online to start the school year. Respondents assert that, at that time,
the levels of community transmission in Johnson County did not reach the substantial level that,
according to the Iowa Department of Public Health and the Iowa Department of Education
guidelines, would make primarily remote instruction necessary. On August 5, 2020, the Iowa
5

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Department of Education denied ICCSD’s request to begin the 2020-2021 school year with
primarily remote instruction. On August 26, 2020, ICCSD again requested permission to
provide instruction primarily through remote learning, and reported to the Iowa Department of
Education that the 14-day positivity rate in Johnson County was 13.95% and climbing. The
Department of Education granted ICCSD’s request, for a two week period.
For their legal argument, Respondents contend that Petitioners cannot show that they are
likely to succeed on the merits. Respondents argue that Petitioners’ broad assertion that local
school boards can make decisions regarding the best interests of their school districts, their
employees, and the children in their care disregards the express role the legislature has
established for the executive branch during a public health disaster, and the legislature’s specific
directives regarding the provision of educational instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Respondents further argue that Petitioners’ position disregards Iowa case law that is clear that it
is the responsibility of the General Assembly to decide how to allocate responsibilities between
the state and local districts. Respondents assert the Iowa Governor has broad powers to manage
a public health emergency, and Governor Reynolds and the Iowa Department of Education have
reasonably interpreted SF 2310. Respondents further assert there is no constitutional or statutory
right to “local control” for school districts.
Respondents argue that Petitioners cannot show that they will be irreparably harmed in
the absence of a temporary injunction, and the fact that ICCSD has been granted permission to
start classes remotely renders the request for temporary injunction moot. Respondents further
argue that any harm from future enforcement proceedings is speculative, and Petitioners have an
adequate remedy at law if the state or its administrative agencies commences an enforcement
action at a future date related to a district’s implementation of its Return-to-Learn plan.
Respondents contend Petitioners cannot demonstrate that they are likely to suffer an injury in the
absence of an injunction.
Respondents assert that injunctive relief is not warranted considering the circumstances
as a whole, and the balance of harms does not favor the Petitioners. Respondents claim an
injunction would harm the State’s interest in effectuating statutes enacted by the representatives
of its people, and students and families will be harmed if students are not provided an option to
attend school in person.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1502 allows temporary injunctions “under any of the
following circumstances:
1.1502(1) When the petition, supported by affidavit, shows the plaintiff is
entitled to relief which includes restraining the commission or continuance of
some act which would greatly or irreparably injure the plaintiff.
1.1502(2) Where, during the litigation, it appears that a party is doing, procuring
or suffering to be done, or threatens or is about to do, an act violating the other
party’s rights respecting the subject of the action and tending to make the
judgment ineffectual.
6

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

1.1502(3) In any case especially authorized by statute.”
I.R.Civ.P. 1.1502. “A petition seeking a temporary injunction shall state, or the attorney shall
certify thereon, whether a petition for the same relief, or part thereof, has been previously
presented to and refused by any court or justice, and if so, by whom and when.” I.R.Civ.P.
1.1504.
“‘A temporary injunction is a preventive remedy to maintain the status quo of the parties
prior to the final judgment and to protect the subject of the litigation.’” Lewis Investments, Inc.
v. City of Iowa City, 703 N.W.2d 180, 184 (Iowa 2005) (citing Kleman v. Charles City Police
Dep’t, 373 N.W.2d 90, 95 (Iowa 1985)). “‘The issuance or refusal of temporary injunction rests
largely in the sound discretion of the trial court, dependent upon the circumstances of the
particular case.’” Id. (citing Kent Prods. v. Hoegh, 245 Iowa 205, 211, 61 N.W.2d 711, 714
(1953)). “One requirement for the issuance of a temporary injunction is a showing of the
likelihood or probability of success on the merits of the underlying claim.” Id.
The Iowa Supreme Court has “often noted that ‘[a]n injunction is an extraordinary
remedy which should be granted with caution and only when clearly required to avoid
irreparable damage.’” Sear v. Clayton County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 590 N.W.2d 512,
515 (Iowa 1999). “The party seeking the injunction must establish: (1) an invasion or
threatened invasion of a right; (2) that substantial injury or damages will result unless the request
for an injunction is granted; and (3) that there is no adequate legal remedy available.” Id.
“When considering the appropriateness of an injunction ‘the court should carefully weigh the
relative hardship which would be suffered by the enjoined party upon awarding injunctive
relief.” Id. Another factor to be considered is the public interest in granting injunctive relief.
Mid-America Real Estate Co. v. Iowa Realty Co., Inc., 406 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2005). A
party is not entitled to injunctive relief when it has an adequate remedy at law. Lewis, 703
N.W.2d at 185.
The Court first considers whether Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their
claim. As Respondents have pointed out, Article IV of the Iowa Constitution provides very
broad powers to the Governor. With respect to emergency powers, Respondents also point out
that the legislature has given the Iowa Governor broad powers to respond to a public health
disaster. Examples of this are found in Iowa Code § 29C.6, which authorizes the governor to
proclaim a disaster emergency, and in Iowa Code § 135.144, which sets forth additional duties of
the Iowa Department of Public Health with respect to public health disasters. The United States
Supreme Court has held that “the police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such
reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public
health and the public safety.” Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25, 25
S.Ct. 358, 361, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905). “[I]n every well-ordered society charged with the duty of
conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at
times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by
reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” Id., 197 U.S. at 29, 25
S.Ct. at 362. However, the Iowa Supreme Court has held that it is “a fundamental principle that
an emergency does not create power.” Duncan v. City of Des Moines, 268 N.W. 547, 552 (Iowa
1936). “It only gives the right to the exercise of power that already exists.” Id. “It never gives
the right to exercise the power forbidden by the Constitution.” Id.
7

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

The Court concludes that the Iowa Constitution and Iowa Code chapter 29C specifically
delegate certain powers to the Iowa Governor, and Iowa Code chapter 135 specifically delegates
certain powers to the Iowa Department of Public Health. There are authorities and
responsibilities given to the Iowa Governor and the Department of Public Health under these
provisions, and the Court concludes there are powers that “already exist[]” and are not being
relied on by the Iowa Governor and the Iowa Department of Public Health solely as provisions
that “create power.” Pursuant to Duncan, the Iowa Governor and the Iowa Department of Public
Health have utilized Iowa Code chapters 29C and 135 to exercise power that already exists.
Relying on these powers, the Iowa Governor and the Department of Public Health have
interpreted SF 2310. As Respondents points out, Section 9 of SF 2310 specifically authorizes
remote learning in response to a proclamation of public health disaster emergency, issued by the
governor pursuant to section 29C.6 and related to COVID-19. Further, Section 15 of SF 2310
clearly prevents school districts from providing instruction primarily through remote-learning
opportunities. Petitioners are not likely to show that Respondents’ actions are inconsistent with
the specific directives of the Iowa Legislature as set forth in SF 2310, or that the provisions of SF
2310 are conflicting. The Court is persuaded by Respondents’ interpretation of SF 2310, i.e.,
that Section 9 sets forth provisions regarding minimum instructional time requirements for
remote learning, while Section 15 specifies that instruction may not take place primarily through
remote learning unless authorized by proclamation. Additionally, the Court agrees with
Respondents that interpreting “primarily” as “at least fifty percent” is a reasonable interpretation
of the use of this word in SF 2310. See Merriam-Webster, online edition (2020); Cambridge
Dictionary, online edition (2020) (equating “primarily” to “chiefly” and “mainly,” respectively).
Petitioners have objected to the Iowa Department of Education using a two-week window
to determine whether a district is providing instruction primarily through remote-learning
opportunities. However, it is likely to be found reasonable for the Department of Education to
use this timeframe, considering scheduling practices and cycles for learning used by schools, and
a longer timeframe may result in schools being closed for longer periods of time than may be
necessary, due to changing COVID-19 infection rates.
Petitioners have urged that local control should apply for school boards to make decisions
about the level of remote-learning made available by their schools. However, the Court is not
persuaded that the authorities relied on by Petitioners overcome the emergency powers given to
the Iowa Governor by the Iowa Constitution and by Iowa Code chapter 29C, or the powers
delegated to the Iowa Department of Education by Iowa Code chapter 135. There is not specific
authorization in the Iowa Code to school boards to make these specific types of emergency
decisions, such as is given to the Iowa Governor.
The Court next concludes that Petitioners have not shown that they will be irreparably
harmed if a temporary injunction is not put into place. The emergency powers utilized by the
Iowa Governor essentially have worked as they were intended to; infection rates in the ICCSD
rose to levels that authorized the school board to seek 100% remote-learning, and, having
considered the infection rates, the ICCSD was granted permission to proceed with 100% remotelearning. As Respondents point out, the status quo is preserved by the Court denying injunctive
8

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

relief, where ICCSD has been given permission to resume classes on September 8, 2020 with a
100% remote-learning model. The Court also agrees that any harm from future enforcement
proceedings is speculative, in that there are no enforcement proceedings against ICCSD, and any
decision by the Court regarding an enforcement proceedings would be dependent on the facts of
any such enforcement proceedings brought against ICCSD. Petitioners have an adequate remedy
at law in that they could seek judicial review of any enforcement proceedings once they have
been filed. Petitioners also have not shown they are likely to suffer an injury if an injunction is
not put in place, since they have been granted the option of 100% remote-learning based on
current Johnson County infection rates. This and any future decisions regarding remote-learning
authorization are made based on the expertise of the Iowa Department of Education, in
consultation with the Iowa Department of Public Health, and the decision to allow ICCSD to
utilize the 100% remote-learning option demonstrates that these agencies apply their expertise
regarding public health conditions in addressing the moving pieces presented by the COVID-19
public health emergency.
Finally, when the harms to the parties are balanced, the facts weigh against putting a
temporary injunction in place. The Iowa Legislature passed SF 2310, which was signed into law
by Governor Reynolds, and the Court is bound to apply Iowa law in reaching its decisions.
While COVID-19 certainly presents the risk of harm to Petitioners’ members, staff, and students,
there also are risks to students that may result from school closures, as described in Dr. Pedati’s
affidavit. The risks are compelling and equal on both sides of this argument, and Petitioners
cannot show that the harms of which they complain outweigh those of the experiences that
students might have if schools are permitted to shutdown indefinitely and without oversight from
Respondents.
This is not the type of situation that warrants the extraordinary remedy of temporary
injunctive relief. Petitioners have not met their burden of showing they are entitled to temporary
injunctive relief, and their request for emergency injunctive relief should be denied.
RULING
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioners’ request for emergency injunctive
relief is DENIED.
Clerk to notify.

9

 E-FILED 2020 SEP 08 12:10 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

State of Iowa Courts
Type:

OTHER ORDER

Case Number
CVCV081968

Case Title
ISEA AND ICCSD VS STATE OF IOWA, ET AL
So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2020-09-08 12:10:20

page 10 of 10