Judge halts removal of material from State Historical Society’s Iowa City facility

IOWA CITY — A Johnson County district judge Friday ordered the state to stop removing historic material from the 168-year-old State Historical Society’s Iowa City research facility that it over the summer decided to close without warning or public discussion.

Sixth Judicial District Judge Kevin McKeever also denied the state’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit that 17 historians, archivists, professors, donors, and other community members filed in September accusing the state of violating Iowa Code in deciding to close the Iowa City facility that’s operated since the historical society’s founding in 1857.

“Defendants are hereby ordered not to remove any further documents, artifacts or other related materials from the Iowa City Research Facility until further order of the court,” according to McKeever’s ruling, pointing to the likelihood the lawsuit is to succeed.

“In considering the likelihood of success on the merits needs only to look to the plain language of the statute, and the actions of the defendant,” McKeever wrote, citing Iowa Code Section 8A 707.2, which requires the department to maintain research centers in Des Moines and Iowa City. “The plain language of the statute does not appear to make maintaining a research center in Iowa City optional.”

He said the plaintiffs also have shown a likelihood of “irreparable harm absent the issuance of an injunction.”

“The representations made by counsel through the written submissions and through oral arguments, which were not contradicted by the defendant, include alarming descriptions of the possible mistreatment of old historical documents and artifacts which if damaged or destroyed could quite possibly be irreplaceable,” he wrote.

“The history of our state is quite precious and should be preserved for future generations. If parts of that history go missing, it would be a great harm to all Iowans including present and future generations.”

McKeever did address the state’s mostly procedural defense that petitioners should first have sought an administrative “declaratory order” before jumping straight to a lawsuit.

“It is further ordered that prior to seeking any further orders from the District Court, the plaintiff shall officially petition the agency for a declaratory order,” according to McKeever. “Pending an outcome of the petition for declaratory order, further proceedings in this matter are suspended.”

James Larew, attorney for the plaintiffs, said his team will promptly file an administrative law action seeking the same relief it asked of the court: a finding that the state’s decision to empty and close the Iowa City research facility is unlawful and a directive the materials be returned.

But the judge’s order for that administrative action doesn’t mean his temporary injunction blocking removal of materials from the Iowa City Centennial Building — which has housed the research facility since 1956 — won’t remain in effect.

“Notwithstanding the court suspending these proceedings on a temporary basis, the court’s injunction remains in full force and effect until further order,” according to McKeever.

Unanswered requests

The genesis of this case dates to June 17, 2025, when the State Historical Society of Iowa issued a press release announcing plans to permanently close the Iowa City research facility and archives — which is embedded in Iowa Code to support scholarly research and education at the neighboring University of Iowa.

  Buy Photo

The state cited $878,000 in deferred maintenance at the Iowa City facility as rationale for the closure and pointed to $5 million in infrastructure funding for shelving in Des Moines “that could be used to house collections transferred from Iowa City, despite the fact that this funding was earmarked for replacing faulty shelving for existing archives,” according to the petitioners’ lawsuit filed Sept. 26 in Johnson County Court.

The state didn’t discuss the closure in advance with the historical society board or stakeholders — and the state archivist later said only 40 percent of the Iowa City collections would move to Des Moines, with the majority “dispersed, deaccessioned, or disposed of,” according to the lawsuit.

But no plan for that dispersion or deaccession was disclosed, leaving the petitioners and those they represent concerned that materials will be damaged, destroyed, or lost — along with the history they represent — and asking the court for a temporary injunction.

The judge promptly scheduled a hearing on the motion to block removal of materials for Oct. 14, but — even with that issue pending — the state Oct. 1 began removing boxes and collections using prison labor in unmarked trucks.

“There's a lot at stake,” Larew told Judge McKeever at the Oct. 14 hearing. “We have prisoners here working for the state, removing these collections. They're untrained as archivists. This is no criticism of them as people.”

But they’re undertaking the removals without taking inventory, without documentation, using unmarked vehicles and coarse handling.

“We ask that the court has those transfers of artifacts cease immediately,” Larew said.

He also asked the court in filings and during the hearing to order the state return all the removed materials and to appoint a special master to investigate and oversee the collections’ handling going forward.

The judge addressed neither of those requests in his Friday order.

‘Completely irrelevant’

In siding with petitioners on the injunction and the request for dismissal, McKeever noted that affidavits filed in support or their request were “completely irrelevant.”

“The court is not to consider public support for or against any decision it makes regarding a legal issue,” he wrote. “Either there is an adequate legal basis for a request under the law or there is not. The existence or non-existence of a legal basis for a request does not depend on public opinion for or against the request. The court is surprised that such an exhibit would even be offered at this stage of the proceedings.”

Although the court did order petitioners to officially seek an administrative declaratory order, he also agreed that this case qualifies as an exception — permitting “review of an agency decision if the delay in obtaining judicial review until the agency proceeding is completed would deprive the litigant of an adequate remedy.”

“An injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted with caution and only when clearly required to avoid irreparable damage,” he said.

  Buy Photo

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com