Some Iowa news headlines misrepresented an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on February 27, which resolved a long-running lawsuit over Iowa’s 2021 law banning schools from requiring masks.

“Federal appeals court upholds Iowa law banning school mask mandates,” read the headline on a Cedar Rapids Gazette story, also published in some of the Lee Newspapers.

KCRG-TV’s version (carried by other television stations with the same owner) was titled “Federal appeals court upholds Iowa ban on mask mandates.”

“Appeals court upholds law banning mask mandates in schools,” read the headline on Iowa Capital Dispatch, a website that allows Iowa newspapers to republish its reporting at no charge.

The framing closely tracked written statements from Governor Kim Reynolds and Attorney General Brenna Bird, who hailed the Eighth Circuit decision.

There was just one problem: the appeals court did not “uphold” the law.

THERE WAS NO RULING ON THE MERITS

The decision by a three-judge panel does leave Iowa’s law in effect. However, it did not consider the merits of the claims the plaintiffs raised.

Rather, the appeals court vacated the November 2022 order by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pratt on the grounds that the plaintiffs (the disability advocacy organization Arc of Iowa and families with school-age children) lacked standing to bring the case.

The children involved have disabilities or medical conditions making them particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 infections. Pratt had ruled that such students “may request a reasonable accommodation that requires masks to be worn by teachers, aides, other students, and anyone else near or interacting with the disabled student,” and school districts must consider such a request, “just as they would any other request for a reasonable modification made under the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] or the Rehabilitation Act.”

The February 27 opinion by Circuit Court Judge Ralph Erickson, joined by Judges Duane Benton and Jonathan Kobes, held that the plaintiffs failed to show they suffered “an injury in fact.” Rather, they “have only alleged the potential risk of severe illness should they contract COVID-19 at school,” which the judges found “too speculative to satisfy the injury in fact element.”

In addition, the plaintiffs failed to show that the named defendants (Governor Reynolds and then Iowa Department of Education Director Ann Lebo) had attempted to enforce the state law in a way that directly affected the vulnerable students.

Although the plaintiffs “asserted ‘rights’ that it believed schools should be given with regard to masking in schools,” the ten school districts that were also named defendants in Arc of Iowa v Reynolds did not appeal the lower court ruling. Therefore “the precise nature of any ongoing dispute is unclear to us.”

The judges noted that Iowa’s ban on school mask mandates “does not prohibit a school from complying with disability laws,” if a family requested “masking as a reasonable accommodation tailored to their child’s situation.”

The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to U.S. District Court with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.

GOVERNOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL TRIED TO MISDIRECT COVERAGE

Before many reporters had a chance to read the appeals court decision, they received news releases that encouraged them to misinterpret the ruling.

The governor’s statement put the phrase “upholding Gov. Reynolds’ Mask Mandate Prohibition in Schools” in the email subject line as well as at the top of the news release. Reynolds’ comments bashing “COVID lockdowns and mandates” had little to do with the legal issues at hand. As she has done many times, she boasted about prohibiting mask mandates and “trusting parents to decide what was best for their children.”

The press release from the Attorney General’s office likewise used the phrase “Ruling to Uphold Iowa Law Banning School Mask Mandates” in the subject line. The opening sentence referred to Bird’s statement “applauding a federal court’s ruling to uphold Iowa’s law banning school mask mandates.” The quote from Bird (included in some news reports) reinforced the frame a third time: “Freedom wins in today’s court ruling to uphold Iowa’s law banning mask mandates in schools. Parents have the right to choose what healthcare decisions are best for their kids.”

What’s best for kids with fragile health has never factored into Bird’s or Reynolds’ calculations. But the Eighth Circuit made clear that under Iowa’s law, parents of such children can request that schools require students and staff who interact with them to wear masks. Many news organizations published the Republican officials’ comments without explaining that aspect of the ruling. KCRG’s news brief gave more space to the governor’s statement than to any explanation of the legal context.

SOME MEDIA USED ACCURATE HEADLINES

Some news organizations found a better way to introduce the appeals court’s decision to readers. The Associated Press article by Hannah Fingerhut (also published on some newspaper and broadcast media websites) was titled, “Federal court dismisses case against Iowa governor’s ban on school mask mandates.”

The headline on the Des Moines Register story by William Morris described the legal landscape in a more complete way: “Appeals court tosses Iowa mask mandate lawsuit, affirms schools must follow disability law.”

Bret Hayworth’s news brief for KWIT (Sioux City’s public radio station) had the title “Federal court ends appeal case against Iowa abolition of school mask mandates.”

Radio Iowa’s story had a good headline—”Federal appeals court rules on Iowa law banning school mask mandates”—but fell down on the first sentence: “A federal appeals court has upheld a 2021 state law that bans schools from issuing mask mandates.”

To be fair, editors may write or alter a headline without input from reporters. Both the Iowa Capital Dispatch story by Clark Kauffman and the Cedar Rapids Gazette story by Caleb McCullough accurately characterized the substance of the Eighth Circuit decision.

But headlines reach far more people than the body of a news story. Most people who see the headline on a social media platform or email newsletter won’t click through to read the article. Even those who subscribe to a newspaper or deliberately visit a website may not get far past the headline.

A misleading headline can influence those who go on to read the whole story as well, by framing the topic before readers absorb the “who, what, where, when, and why” details.

It’s likely that many Iowans now have the wrong impression that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals validated or even endorsed Iowa’s ban on school mask mandates. Reynolds and Bird have every incentive to promote that view. But journalists and editors should be careful not to let official spin set the news agenda.