Three-quarters of rulings unanimous in first term of 7-0 conservative Iowa Supreme Court

Though it is made up of seven minds, the Iowa Supreme Court spent much of the past year speaking with a single voice.

The 2022-23 term of Iowa's highest court, in its first year with a 7-0 Republican-appointed majority, was marked by a notable lack of dissent. Of the 97 cases decided, 74 of them, or 76%, were unanimous, compared to 56% the year before.

The U.S. Supreme Court, by contrast, was unanimous in 48% of its decisions in its latest term.

This state court's show of unity, despite high-profile exceptions on cases involving abortion and its own prior COVID-19 emergency orders, came after the retirement last summer of Justice Brent Appel, the court's last Democratic appointee and a famously prolific opinion writer.

From 2022: Iowa Supreme Court more often rejects precedents under bigger conservative majority, analysis shows

But "it's not just an Appel effect," said Matt McGuire, an attorney with Nyemaster Goode and a contributor to On Brief, the firm's Iowa appellate blog.

McGuire noted that while several justices authored more than 30 opinions the previous year, only one justice wrote more than 20 opinions in the latest term.

"I think you saw last term a decrease in disagreements or writing separate opinions across the board from a lot of the justices," he said.

Numbers compiled by the Des Moines Register bear that out. No justice dissented in more than seven cases over the full term, or wrote more than three solo opinions. Justice Matthew McDermott wrote the most dissents, with six, and the most non-unanimous opinions with 10, but that pales in comparison to the 14 dissents he and Appel each wrote in the prior term, or to Appel's 32 non-unanimous opinions (including 21 solo opinions) in his final term on the court.

Where disagreements arose, the Iowa Supreme Court had several ties

Where the court did disagree, the results could grab headlines. In fact, the court deadlocked on several significant constitutional cases.

Most notably, the court was unable to reach a majority on whether Iowa's 2018 law barring most abortions should take effect. With Justice Dana Oxley recused, the remaining justices split three to three, writing dueling opinions marked by unusually sharp criticism of one another. The deadlock meant the district court's order blocking the law remained in place.

The court also, ironically, found itself at loggerheads over whether one of its own previous orders was constitutional. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, with many courtrooms on lockdown, the court issued several orders temporarily suspending legal deadlines to file new claims. A judge in a Pottawattamie County lawsuit found those orders to be unconstitutional, and on appeal, with McDermott recused, the court was left in a tie, meaning again that the district court's ruling was affirmed.

Another Iowa Supreme Court reversal raises question of precedents

Perhaps the other most significant ruling of the term, though, was unanimous.

A core principle of appellate law is respect for precedent, known as stare decisis. But for the second year in a row, the court upended a recent precedent in a high-profile case with a May ruling reversing a 2017 decision that had allowed Iowans to sue for damages for violations of their state constitutional rights.

In the 2021-22 term, the court likewise overturned a 2018 decision holding that the Iowa Constitution protects a "fundamental right" to abortion access.

Previously: Iowa Supreme Court shows new conservative approach by reversing recent civil rights precedent

To see a court repeatedly changing course so quickly is notable, especially when the change follows the rapid turnover of judges, said Robert Williams, a retired Rutgers University professor and director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies. It comes as the U.S. Supreme Court also has drawn criticism for reversing itself when, in 2022, it overturned Roe vs. Wade, the longstanding decision that had legalized abortion nationwide.

"The merits of (the Iowa constitutional damages case) are a nationwide question in all the states," Williams said. "But you come back to the same doctrine of precedent: The court changed, and they just say, 'Well, that was wrong.'"

Justice David May's presence limited in first term

The court's newest justice, David May, likely found himself with a lot of time on his hands in his first year. May did not participate in 35 cases, more than a third of the total decided by the court. Before his appointment, May sat on the Iowa Court of Appeals, and most of his recusals came in cases challenging decisions from his tenure there.

On cases where he did participate, though, May kept busy. He wrote 13 majority opinions, in line with his colleagues, and his 15 total opinions, though the second-fewest on the court, tied with Oxley, who sat out only one case.

May's majority opinions included decisions in favor of public records seekers and military veteran job seekers and weighing in on topics as diverse as horse racing regulations and the taxation of wind turbines. Perhaps his most notable case was in a Cedar Rapids man's appeal of his murder conviction, where May wrote for the majority finding that law enforcement officials did not violate the Iowa Constitution by doing a DNA test on a drinking straw left at a restaurant, which helped solve a 40-year-old cold case.

Politics playing out in courtrooms nationwide

Despite the court's public and repeated struggle over abortion, McGuire noted that in a typical term, the majority of its cases are criminal appeals, contract disputes and other issues with no strong political valence.

"Even if you wanted to line up the justices on the traditional left-right spectrum, that's often just not relevant to the issues that they're deciding," he said.

But Williams said there's a national trend for more and more hot-button political issues, such as abortion and electoral gerrymandering, to be fought out in state rather than federal courts, which is putting increasing focus on state supreme courts.

"It's as someone said, Dobbs (the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade) was good for democracy, in that it has raised a lot of people's interest in state constitutions, state legislatures, state courts, and state governors, asking, 'What's your position on these national issues?'"

What's up next on the Iowa Supreme Court docket?

The court begins its 2023-24 term in September and already has scheduled oral arguments for a number of notable cases, including one by Republican legislators challenging subpoenas from the League of United Latin American Citizens demanding documents related to two election administration laws. The justices also will hear an appeal from a man convicted of a hate crime for leaving notes telling homeowners to burn their rainbow Pride flags.

Further into the term, the court has agreed to hear yet another abortion case. After its decision in June, the Iowa Legislature in a July special session passed a new version of the law banning most abortions, which Planned Parenthood promptly challenged in court. The law currently is blocked by order of a district judge, and the state is appealing. That case does not yet have a date for arguments.

Analysis: Iowa Supreme Court's tie vote on 6-week abortion ban puts focus on Justice Dana Oxley

The court lists on its website two dozen more cases it has agreed to hear, and will add more through the coming term. Most don't involve politically sensitive issues, but Williams said an era of heightened scrutiny on state supreme courts is here to stay.

"When I was in law school, those were all federal topics," he said. "None of that stuff was on the dockets of state supreme courts, and that's changed dramatically. ... A guy like me, who spent my whole career on state constitutions, all of a sudden my stock has gone way up."

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: How did Iowa Supreme Court rule with new 7-0 conservative majority?