Iowa Supreme Court overturns 2017 ruling that allowed constitutional claims against state
Six years after ruling Iowans could bring suit against the state over violations of their state constitutional rights, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed itself Friday, holding that plaintiffs can seek damages for constitutional violations only where specifically permitted by the Legislature.
Friday's decision, which involved an Iowa City-area garbage truck driver arrested for refusing to cooperate in a police inspection of his truck, overturns the 2017 decision known as Godfrey II. In that case, the court considered what to do with violations of Iowa constitutional rights for which no statute, such as the Iowa Civil Rights Act or Iowa Tort Claims Act, explicitly authorized lawsuits against the state.
The court in that case ruled that such lawsuits were permissible, even without legislative authorization. But on Friday, the court, which has seen more than 50% turnover since 2017, held that decision and all its successor cases were decided wrongly.
Justice Edward Mansfield wrote for the now-unanimous court that Friday's decision will "restore the law as it existed in this state before 2017."
For subscribers: Godfrey discrimination lawsuit against Branstad brought big changes for Iowa constitutional law, attorneys say
Plaintiffs' attorneys, including those from the current and original Godfrey cases, say that's a step in the wrong direction.
“This decision is a major setback in the fight to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of individual Iowans against the vast power of state and local government," Andrew Mertens, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice, said in a statement.
2017 case opened new door for constitutional claims
Godfrey II — the court eventually had three decisions arising from the same lawsuit — involved former state Workers' Compensation Commissioner Christopher Godfrey, who alleged the administration of Gov. Terry Branstad had retaliated against him for being gay by trying to force him out of his job. A jury eventually found for Godfrey and awarded him $1.5 million.
In their 2017 decision, the justices considered claims Godfrey brought directly under the equal protection and due process guarantees of the state constitution, which a lower court had dismissed. It ruled that the Iowa Constitution could directly authorize claims for monetary damages "when the legislature has not provided an adequate remedy."
The opinion cited a number of cases dating back more than a century that the justices believed demonstrated early courts and legislatures had envisioned a "self-executing" Iowa Constitution that would allow those wronged by the government to seek relief with or without legislative authorization.
Since 2017, the court has issued a string of decisions clarifying and expanding on that decision, including deciding what forms of immunity state officials might be entitled to in Godfrey cases and what statutes of limitations and procedural requirements might apply.
New case brought by arrested truck driver
The Supreme Court later overturned that verdict for Godfrey in a third ruling and ordered the case dismissed. But the rights granted under Godfrey II remained.
Friday's ruling overturning that decision came in the case of Cory Burnett, a driver for Waste Management, who was pulled over in 2019 after an Iowa Department of Transportation officer saw his windshield was cracked. The officer decided to conduct a vehicle inspection, and asked Burnett to assist by turning on the truck's lights. Burnett refused, saying he was "fine going to jail" for not cooperating. He was arrested for interference.
A judge eventually dismissed the charge against Burnett. He then sued the officer and the state, accusing the officer of unreasonable stop and seizure that violated his due process rights under the Iowa Constitution. A district judge dismissed Burnett's claims, and he appealed.
Before Godfrey II, cases like Burnett's often were dismissed under the principle that government officials had sovereign immunity for their official actions, even when they may have been wrongly undertaken. Opposing his appeal, the Iowa Attorney General's Office raised several arguments, including that Godfrey II had been wrongly decided. It was on this basis that the court ruled Friday, affirming dismissal of Burnett's suit.
Court rejects 'tension, conflict, and uncertainty' of 2017 ruling
Mansfield wrote the dissenting opinion in the deeply divided Godfrey II decision, and his majority opinion Friday repeatedly cited that 2017 argument in explaining why he believes the prior court got it wrong.
Delegates writing the state's 1857 Constitution considered and rejected language explicitly permitting the state to be sued on the basis of constitutional violations, Mansfield wrote. He argued that several precedents pointed to by the Godfrey majority had really been for simple violations such as trespassing, rather than being brought as constitutional violations.
And he pointed to several pre-Godfrey cases in which the court had explicitly rejected constitutional damage claims under sovereign immunity, which holds the state cannot be sued outside of narrow areas authorized by statute.
The state's experience since Godfrey II reinforces the need to change course, he wrote in Friday's opinion. The court has been inconsistent and divided in its rulings on follow-up cases testing the limits of the new Godfrey claims, and the Iowa Legislature has voiced its disapproval of the ruling, noting in a 2021 law that legislators continue to believe sovereign immunity should apply against Godfrey claims.
Mansfield also pointed to federal law, where a similar U.S. Supreme Court case, known as Bivens, likewise created a direct claim for violations of the U.S. Constitution even where not permitted by statute. Since that 1971 decision, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed the scope of Bivens claims, and in a 2022 decision the court explicitly called Bivens claims a "disfavored" judicial remedy, preferring instead to let Congress take the lead in deciding how such claims should be addressed.
"Once a court begins constructing damages remedies for constitutional violations — without the rich history of thecommon law or the clear direction of a statute — tension, conflict, and uncertainty result," Mansfield wrote. "... These inevitable and unpredictable forays by each branch into the other’s territory violate separation of powers."
Attorneys call decision a step back; government officials praise it
Marty Diaz, Burnett's attorney, said in an email that the decision is "disappointing on many levels."
"Hopefully the court will protect Iowans from municipal officials, but Iowans need to understand that the Iowa Constitution can only be used defensively from this day forward against state officials — and it will require that you pay a lawyer on an hourly basis for that 'privilege,'" Diaz wrote. "Hopefully, the legislature does the right thing and fixes this problem but Iowans should not hold their breath. Elections matter.”
Roxanne Conlin, who represented Godfrey in his lawsuit, voiced even stronger disappointment with the ruling. Conlin said she had worked for decades, across multiple cases, to try to see the court establish a direct constitutional cause of action.
"My heart is broken," she said, to see that victory reversed just six years later.
"That they did that is perhaps not surprising, but it is devastating," Conlin said. "... They've had their axes sharpened for this case ever since this court took office. They'd hinted at it along the way. We all had our fingers crossed in the hope that justice would prevail, and it didn't."
While plaintiff-side attorneys condemned the decision, it was lauded by those representing government entities. The Iowa League of Cities filed a brief in Burnett's case supporting overturning Godfrey, and League attorney Elizabeth Craig said Friday that the court reached the correct outcome.
"The Godfrey decision in 2017 was a huge change in Iowa law, made by the court without giving the legislature the chance to consider whether these new types of claims were desirable," Craig said in an email. "Godfrey put Iowa courts in the position of making new law every time a case was brought for money damages under the Iowa Constitution. ... The Iowa Constitution was never meant to be a stand-alone source for new money damage claims."
William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com, 715-573-8166 or on Twitter at @DMRMorris.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court rules no direct lawsuits under state constitution
