Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
THE ARC OF IOWA et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KIM REYNOLDS, in her official
capacity as Governor of Iowa, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 4:21-CV-00264-RP-SBJ
Defendants Governor Kim
Reynolds and Ann Lebo’s Response
to Plaintiffs’ Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts
COME NOW Defendants Governor Kim Reynolds and Ann Lebo (collectively
“the State”) and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Local Rule 56(b)(2)
submit this response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts:
1.
The statutory history of section 280.31 is a question of law that is not
subject to admission or denial. But to the extent a response is required, paragraph 1
is admitted except that May 20, 2021, was the date only of enactment—when the
Governor signed the bill enacting section 280.31—not the date the Legislature
“passed” the bill. See Act of May 20, 2021 (H.F. 847), ch. 139, 2021 Iowa Act § 28
(codified at Iowa Code § 280.31 (2022)), available at https://perma.cc/XM6Q-A3HX;
H. Journal, 2021 Reg. Sess., 89th Gen. Assemb., at 1191–92 (Iowa 2021), available at
https://perma.cc/ZZ4M-BC3Q; S. Journal, 2021 Reg. Sess., 89th Gen. Assemb., at
1130–32 (Iowa 2021), available at https://perma.cc/NP3U-WC6J.
2.
The text of Iowa Code section 280.31 is a question of law that is not subject
to admission or denial, and it speaks for itself. But to the extent a response is
required, the State admits that paragraph 2 accurately quotes the statute.
3.
The text of Iowa Code section 280.31 is a question of law that is not subject
to admission or denial, and it speaks for itself. But to the extent a response is required
— 2 —
to the legal argument in paragraph 3, it is denied. Section 280.31 does “delineate
what ‘provision[s] of law’ are included” in its exception. The exception includes “any
other provision of law.” Iowa Code § 280.31 (emphasis added); see also Arc of Iowa v.
Reynolds, 33 F.4th 1042, 1045 (8th Cir. 2022) (“This exception unambiguously states
that Section 280.31 does not apply where ‘any other provision of law’ requires masks.
‘Any’ makes ‘provision of law’ a broad category that does not distinguish between
state or federal law.”).
4.
Paragraph 4 is admitted for the purposes of this motion only because it is
not material to deciding Plaintiffs’ requested declaratory judgment as currently
argued. If Plaintiffs change their arguments in reply—and the court would be inclined
to consider such new arguments—the State would ask for leave to file a motion for
continuance under Rule 56(d) for additional time to conduct discovery and develop a
proper factual record.
5.
Paragraph 5 is admitted.
6.
Paragraph 6 is admitted to the extent that a spokesperson for Director
Lebo’s office said in substance that “school districts that choose not to follow the ban
could receive a citation for noncompliance” and “be referred to the State Board of
Education” if an issued citation is not corrected “in a timely manner.” Pltfs’ App’x, R.
Doc. 88-3, at 69 (emphasis added). It is otherwise denied because the cited portions
of the record do not support the assertion that this statement to a newspaper reporter
was a “warn[ing].” Pltfs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Doc. 88-2, at ¶ 6;
see also Pltfs’ App’x, R. Doc. 88-3, at 69. Nor do they support the assertion that
Governor Reynolds and Lebo “would enforce Section 280.31 against school districts
that implemented mask mandates.” Pltfs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,
Doc. 88-2, at ¶ 6 (emphasis added); see also Pltfs’ App’x, R. Doc. 88-3, at 69, 73.
7.
Paragraph 7 is admitted.
— 3 —
8.
Paragraph 8 is admitted.
9.
Paragraph 9 is admitted to the extent that a single school district indicated
its intent to implement a mask mandate if section 280.31 was enjoined. It is otherwise
denied because the cited parts of the record do not support the statement that
multiple “schools districts” indicated the same wish. And the cited parts of the record
also provide no support for the cause of any school district deciding not to implement
mask mandates.
10. Paragraph 10 is admitted.
11. Paragraph 11 is admitted to the extent that some Plaintiffs pulled their
medically vulnerable children out of school and that others still sent their children to
school. It is otherwise admitted only for the purpose of this motion because it is not
material to deciding Plaintiffs’ requested declaratory judgment as currently argued.
If Plaintiffs change their arguments in reply—and the court would be inclined to
consider such new arguments—the State would ask for leave to file a motion for
continuance under Rule 56(d) for additional time to conduct discovery and develop a
proper factual record.
12. Paragraph 12 is admitted.
13. Paragraph 13 is admitted.
14. Paragraph 14 is admitted.
15. Paragraph 15 is admitted.
16. Paragraph 16 is admitted, except that the quote from the State’s appellate
brief inaccurately omits two em-dashes and uses hyphens in their place. See Pltfs’
App’x, R. Doc. 88-3, at 79.
17. Paragraph 17 is admitted, except that the quote from the State’s appellate
brief inaccurately states “Rehab Act” instead of “Rehabilitation Act.” See Pltfs’ App’x,
R. Doc. 88-3, at 85.
— 4 —
18. Paragraph 18 is denied because it splices together two accurate quotes from
the State’s appellate brief to create an inaccurate sentence. See Pltfs’ App’x, R. Doc.
88-3, at 82. The brief said, “If Plaintiffs are correct that universal mask mandates in
schools are required by federal disability law, then section 280.31 doesn’t stand in the
way of their desired mandates.” Id. (emphasis added). It continued to explain that
“Their quarrel would be with their schools.” Id. And that they “might be able to
request some relief other than the granted injunction to seek resolution of these
disputes.” Id.
19. Paragraph 19 is admitted, except that the quote from the school district
email inaccurately states “facemasks” instead of “face masks.”
20. Paragraph 20 is admitted for the purposes of this motion only because it is
not material to deciding Plaintiffs’ requested declaratory judgment as currently
argued. If Plaintiffs change their arguments in reply—and the court would be inclined
to consider such new arguments—the State would ask for leave to file a motion for
continuance under Rule 56(d) for additional time to conduct discovery and develop a
proper factual record.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS J. MILLER
Attorney General of Iowa
JEFFREY S. THOMPSON
Solicitor General
/s/ Samuel P. Langholz
SAMUEL P. LANGHOLZ
Assistant Attorney General
Iowa Department of Justice
1305 E. Walnut Street, 2nd Floor
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-5164
(515) 281-4209 (fax)
— 5 —
sam.langholz@ag.iowa.gov
jeffrey.thompson@ag.iowa.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
GOVERNOR KIM REYNOLDS AND
ANN LEBO
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was
served upon all parties of record by delivery in the following
manner on August 5, 2022:
U.S. Mail
Email
Hand Delivery
Overnight Courier
Federal Express
Other
CM/ECF
Signature: /s/ Samuel P. Langholz