The Iowa Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Executive Order 10 (EO10) issued by Governor Kim Reynolds. The court ruled that the plaintiffs, Steve Veysey, Kathy Carter, and Mary Powell, lacked standing to bring their case against the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC), and the Governor. This ruling has implications for how state agencies operate under EO10, which aims to reduce regulatory burdens.

The case, titled Veysey v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa Utilities Commission, and Governor Kim Reynolds, was filed on November 4, 2026, under docket number 25-1362. The plaintiffs argued that EO10 was illegal and diminished the effectiveness of existing environmental regulations. However, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate concrete injuries resulting from the executive order.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case, Veysey, Carter, and Powell, are Iowa residents concerned about the impact of EO10 on environmental regulations. EO10, issued in January 2023, mandates that all state agencies review their administrative rules to reduce regulatory burdens. The order claims that excessive regulations have hindered job growth and increased costs for Iowans.

Veysey, an avid fly fisherman, argued that EO10 undermines rules meant to control pollution from animal feeding operations. Carter, who relies on municipal water sources, contended that the order affects regulations governing water withdrawal permits. Powell, an heir to a family farm, claimed that EO10 weakens protections against economic and environmental damages from pipeline construction.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in March 2025, seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate EO10. They argued that the executive order exceeded the Governor's authority and that any rules adopted under it were illegal. The agencies responded by moving to dismiss the case, asserting that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a valid claim.

The Ruling

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, agreeing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court emphasized that standing requires a plaintiff to show a specific personal interest in the litigation and that they have been injuriously affected. The court stated, "none of the plaintiffs have alleged that they have incurred any of the damages they claim could flow from the issuance of EO10."

The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claims were largely based on conjectural and hypothetical injuries rather than concrete, actual harm. For example, Veysey's assertion that EO10 diminishes the effectiveness of certain DNR rules was deemed too vague and lacking in factual support. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for standing, stating, "The potential harm they do identify is vague and lacks explanation."

In its opinion, the court referenced the precedent set in Godfrey v. State, which allows for exceptions to standing requirements in cases of great public importance. However, the court found that Veysey did not adequately demonstrate how his claims qualified for this exception. The ruling emphasized that even when considering public importance, plaintiffs must still present a concrete injury distinct from the general population.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for how state agencies in Iowa operate under Executive Order 10. By affirming the dismissal, the court has reinforced the idea that individuals must demonstrate actual harm to challenge executive actions effectively. This decision may deter similar lawsuits in the future, as potential plaintiffs will need to establish clear and concrete injuries to have standing in court.

The ruling also highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to contest executive orders that affect regulatory practices. Without a clear demonstration of harm, citizens may find it difficult to hold state agencies accountable for changes in regulations that they believe could impact their rights or interests.

What's Next

While the court's ruling is final in this case, the plaintiffs may consider their options for further appeal. However, given the court's strong emphasis on standing, it may be challenging for them to present a successful case in a higher court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.