(An Iowa Capital Dispatch report) – The Iowa State Association of Counties is seeking financial assistance from counties for a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Story and Shelby counties’ request for U.S. Supreme Court review of a case against Summit Carbon Solutions.  The association said, in a letter addressed to county boards of supervisors, the case before the court “highlights the importance of local control” and “has the potential to impact all counties nationwide.”  Several counties in southwest Iowa have committed funds for the legal proceedings, including Cass, Adair, Mills, Montgomery, and Page, to name a few.

Iowa State Association of Counties is a nonprofit organization with elected and appointed officials from all 99 counties, with a mission to promote effective and efficient local government.  Leadership with the county association were unable to share up-to-date figures Tuesday as to how many counties have pledged financial support on the amicus brief.

According to the letter, dated Oct. 20, 2025, it will cost the association $25,000 to submit the amicus brief to the court, which is why it is soliciting suggested donations of  $500 from counties to help “cover the cost.”  The association submitted the brief, according to the docket, Nov. 6.

The letter said the brief would be submitted on behalf of the association’s membership and would stress the importance of local control. The letter explained to supervisors that a brief can help the court to “better understand” different arguments and the importance of a case. The briefs can also help in “improving a case’s chance” of being taken up by the Supreme Court.

Story and Shelby counties were each sued by Summit Carbon Solutions — a company that seeks to build a carbon sequestration pipeline across Iowa and several other surrounding states – over local ordinances the counties enacted.  The ordinances included setbacks from structures and local permitting requirements to which Summit would have to adhere to build its pipeline through the counties.

The cases were combined as they worked through the courts. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, located in Omaha, ruled in favor of Summit and a lower court, that the counties could not impose safety standards on a pipeline that is subject to federal standards. The counties then petitioned the federal appeals court for a rehearing of the case, which was denied, before the county supervisors voted in August to take the issue up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The letter to counties included a summary of the case from Timothy Whipple of Ahlers & Cooney in Des Moines. The summary said the counties seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the case because the appellate court decision was “legally wrong and problematic.” The counties allege the decision was wrong because it inquired into the motives of county supervisors when they made the ordinances, created a “vague and unworkable standard” and created a “regulatory void.”

At the center of these arguments, and of the Eighth Circuit Court’s decision, is whether or not state and local governments can consider safety when enacting ordinances or if they may enact safety standards. The summary of the suit said the appellate court’s ruling could “invalidate” a “wide range” of local ordinances. Additional counties in Iowa have also been sued by Summit over their ordinances, but those cases have been put on hold while Story and Shelby counties’ case plays out.

Summit filed requests to resume the other county cases on the argument that regardless of the Supreme Court outcome, counties would be preempted by state law in Iowa from dictating pipeline routes. Summit Carbon Solutions did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday (today).  The brief, submitted on behalf of the Iowa State Association of Counties, said Iowa counties exercise “home rule authority” to govern matters like land use.

“Expansive federal preemption, especially when based on motive, threatens counties’ autonomy,” the brief said. “The Association has a strong interest in vindicating the legitimate policymaking discretion of home rule counties.”

In addition to the association, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Preemption Law Professors and the states of Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont, have submitted briefs in support of the counties’ request for a reevaluation of the case.