成人抖阴

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 成人抖阴 Newsletter

A federal appeals court has ruled that a group of Iowa parents of children with disabilities lack the legal standing to sue the state over a law prohibiting schools from imposing mask mandates.

ARC of Iowa, a nonprofit that helps individuals with intellectual disabilities, and the parents of several Iowa children with disabilities, had sued the state over a law that prevents schools from imposing mask mandates on students and staff to combat the spread of COVID-19.

On Tuesday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state by stating the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to bring such a lawsuit.

The legal battle dates back to 2021, when Gov. Kim Reynolds signed legislation prohibiting school districts from imposing mask mandates on staff and students. That brought by ARC of Iowa and the parents of children who have disabilities or chronic health conditions that put them at greater risk of complications if they contract COVID-19.

The parents alleged the state was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by making it impossible for school districts to make reasonable accommodations for their children through the imposition of mask mandates.

An  preventing the enforcement of the new law, but Reynolds appealed that decision. In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the injunction, noting that COVID-19 conditions in classrooms had changed since the beginning of the pandemic.

That ruling focused only on the injunction and not on the broader issue of the law鈥檚 legality. Litigation over that issue continued and in November 2022, , noting that doctors for three students had recommended the students鈥� teachers and classmates be masked.

In that decision, the district court stated that the new law could not be cited as the sole basis for denying a school鈥檚 request for a waiver of the mask-mandate law due to the Americans with Disabilities Act and that law鈥檚 requirement that schools provide 鈥渞easonable accommodation鈥� to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

Reynolds appealed the ruling, arguing that ARC and the parents lacked any legal standing to bring their case, and that they had not satisfied all of the requirements of the ADA.

In its ruling on Tuesday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that to establish standing, ARC of Iowa and the parents would have to show an injury tied to the conduct of the state and show that such an injury could be redressed by a favorable court ruling.

The appeals court found that ARC of Iowa and the parents could show no such injury and had simply challenged 鈥渞ights鈥� that they believed schools should have with regard to mask mandates.

鈥淭he crux of any dispute 鈥� if there is one 鈥� appears to perhaps be between the state and the school districts,鈥� the appeals court stated. 鈥淪ince the school districts did not appeal and are not a party before us, the precise nature of any ongoing dispute is unclear to us.鈥�

Citing prior decisions in other jurisdictions, the court said 鈥渢he general risks associated with COVID-19, even though COVID-19 remains an ever-present concern in society, are not enough to show imminent and substantial harm for standing.鈥� Those prior decisions found that the increased risk of contracting COVID-19 was 鈥渋nsufficient鈥� to demonstrate an impending future injury, in part because the odds of contracting COVID-19 and suffering complications would be speculative.

Because ARC of Iowa and the parents of the disabled students 鈥渙nly alleged the potential risk of severe illness should they contract COVID-19 at school, the risk of harm is too speculative,鈥� the court said in its decision Tuesday.

It added that even if the added risk of contracting COVID-19 wasn鈥檛 speculative, the plaintiffs still had not alleged that a school had denied their request for a mask mandate as a reasonable accommodation they were seeking under the rights bestowed by the ADA.

Although the appeals court鈥檚 decision doesn鈥檛 address the merits of a ban on mask mandates, Reynolds and Bird characterized the ruling as a victory for parents and for freedom.

鈥淲hile children were the least vulnerable, they paid the highest price for COVID lockdowns and mandates, but Iowa was a different story,鈥� Reynolds said in a written statement. 鈥淚owa was the first state to get students back in the classroom and we prohibited mask mandates in schools, trusting parents to decide what was best for their children. Elected leaders should always trust the people they serve, and I promise I would do it again.鈥�

In a written statement, Bird said, 鈥淔reedom wins in today鈥檚 court ruling to uphold Iowa鈥檚 law banning mask mandates in schools. Parents have the right to choose what healthcare decisions are best for their kids. As attorney general, I support Iowans鈥� rights and freedoms and will continue fighting to defend them.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on and .

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 成人抖阴 Newsletter