UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court holds it had authority to extend statute of limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic

by Rox Laird | March 6, 2025

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an order temporarily extending the two-year statute of limitations in civil cases by 76 days. Defendants in a Polk County civil suit that was filed by the plaintiffs after the two-year statutory deadline but within the 76-day extension argued the case should be dismissed because the Iowa Supreme Court did not have the authority to change the statute of limitations set by the Legislature. The district court agreed and dismissed the case.

In a Feb. 28 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court held that it had the authority to issue its 2020 supervisory order extending the statute of limitations, and it remanded the case to the district court. The decision was written by Justice Matthew McDermott joined by Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justices Thomas Waterman and Edward Mansfield. Justice Christopher McDonald wrote a separate opinion joined by Justice Dana Oxley concurring in the judgment of the Court. Justice David May wrote a dissenting opinion.

This is the second time the Court has addressed the question of the constitutionality of its supervisory order pausing – or “tolling” – the statute of limitations. The first was in a 2022 Pottawattamie County case. But the justices were evenly divided 3-3 in that case, as Justice McDermott did not participate in the case and the remainder split on the question, with Chief Justice Christensen and Justices Waterman and Mansfield saying the supervisory order did not infringe on the Legislature’s authority to limit the time for filing lawsuits. Justices McDonald, Oxley and May said it did. [See On Brief’s analysis of the per curiam order in the 2022 case.]

The question before the Court in the case issued Feb 28: Did the Court’s emergency order extending the statute of limitations by 76 days during the pandemic violate the separation of powers doctrine under the Iowa Constitution? The Court concluded that it did not.

Although governmental powers are divided between legislative, administrative, and judicial departments, the lines separating the three are not rigid, the Court said, quoting from an earlier decision that said the Constitution allows some overlapping responsibilities, “entrust[ing] both the legislature and the judiciary with ensuring that the judicial branch functions and administers justice.”

The Iowa Constitution grants certain powers to the Legislature to regulate how the judiciary carries out its judicial power, including the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, McDermott wrote, but the Supreme Court is vested with “supervisory and administrative control” over all state courts.

Statutes of limitation are legislative enactments that strike a balance “between the idea that defendants should not be left open to indefinite liability and the idea that plaintiffs deserve a fair opportunity to have their day in court,” McDermott wrote. But the COVID-19 pandemic “brought about unprecedented temporary changes to societal functioning that upended this balance,” he wrote, because the judicial process was affected by closed courts and when lawyers were unable to meet in person with clients and witnesses.

“In our view, addressing these types of roadblocks by tolling statutes of limitations falls within the judicial power and our explicit authority to exercise ‘supervisory and administrative control’ over the court system,” the Court said. “This is true notwithstanding the legislature’s recognized authority to establish limitations periods in civil cases.”

Writing in his opinion concurring in the Court’s judgment, which was joined by Justice Oxley, Justice McDonald explained why he has changed his views since 2022.

“At that time, it was my view that the challenged provision of the supervisory order violated the separation of powers clause in the Iowa Constitution and was void,” he wrote. “Upon further study and reflection, I have come to conclude that the challenged provision of the supervisory order is not irreconcilable with the separation of powers clause in the state constitution.”

But Justice McDonald reached that decision for different reasons than the majority.

Whereas the majority concluded that the Court’s inherent authority to supervise and administer practice and procedure in all of Iowa’s courts gives it authority to toll and statute of limitations, McDonald argued the source of that authority is the Court’s general equitable power.

“The only possible legitimate source of power to support a change in the law to be applied in Iowa’s courts that would also result in a change in the law to be applied in federal district courts applying Iowa law is this court’s equitable power to make law and toll the statutes of limitations in the extraordinary circumstances presented during the pandemic,” McDonald wrote.

Justice May adhered to his 2022 position that the Court lacked constitutional authority to toll the statute of limitations, and in his dissenting opinion he disagreed with the arguments put forward by both the Court’s majority and Justice McDonald’s concurrence to justify the constitutionality of the Court’s 2020 supervisory order.

“The power to revise statutes is held by the people’s elected representatives in the Iowa General Assembly, our legislature,” he wrote. “It is not held by the judiciary.” Because the Court lacked the power to revise Iowa’s statute of limitations, he would affirm the district court.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court, Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25