Iowa Supreme Court Recognizes the Water Crisis
Despite ruling against us on Friday in a nail biting 4-3 vote, at the very least the Iowa Supreme Court recognizes the severity of our water crisis.
But as Neil Hamilton so elegantly pointed out in his analysis shared on the latest blog post from Chris Jones, “if it is not the role of the Iowa Supreme Court to hold the state accountable to the public, then who does have that role?”
There were a few other interesting tidbits that made us raise our eyebrows here at the office. Read on for a (lengthy) breakdown of Friday's Iowa Supreme Court decision and three dissenting opinions:
The Iowa Supreme Court used federal standards not used in Iowa before.
In Polk County District Court back in September 2019, District Court Judge Robert Hanson ruled in our favor saying that because of the standards historically used in the state of Iowa, our lawsuit had standing – aka we had enough proof that there was harm caused by the water pollution in the Raccoon River. However, the majority that ruled against our case, decided to factor in a federal standard (from Article III) never before used deeming our previous standing void and setting a new precedent for the state.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on the scope of the Public Trust Doctrine prematurely.
We sued the State of Iowa based on the Public Trust Doctrine which lays out that it’s the state’s constitutional duty to protect the public's use and enjoyment of navigable waters. It's what we've been saying for years -- that Iowans have a right to clean water and that the state has a duty to protect that right. That is the core of our case and one that the attorneys representing the State never argued against back in December. However, the majority that ruled against our case, decided to use a big chunk of their argument discussing what falls under the definition and scope laid out by the Public Trust Doctrine. Even though the merits – or details – of our case had not been presented before the court yet.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled our case non-justiciable.
Translation, please! Like we quoted above, the majority that ruled against our case decided that it would be an overreach of the courts to have our lawsuit continue to trial. “We do so here and leave this dispute where it stands at present: with the branches of our government whose duty it is to represent the public. In the end, we believe it would exceed our institutional role to ‘hold the State accountable to the public.’” (pg 30.)
I don't know about you, but the ruling was really disappointing and a let down. What's a person gotta do to get some good news around here! But it wasn't all bad. Three Iowa Supreme Justices voted against the majority and in our favor. That's the closest it can get! Here's what they had to say in the opinions that they submitted:
The use of the standards from Article III were unnecessary and that our lawsuit has valid standing. And, there would be no danger in whether the courts would overreach their authority by hearing our case. (Translation: they agreed with the original ruling by District Court Judge Robert Hanson)
It was not the job of the Iowa Supreme Court to look over the merits – or details – of the case especially details that the State never disputed at the hearing in December.
Overall, whether or not they personally believed our clean water lawsuit would have succeeded in trial, it was a premature decision to throw the case out at this stage and the majority should have let the scope of the case play out and develop back in district court.
So, what’s next? We keep fighting.
On Monday, our legal teams got together and unanimously recommended we consider all our legal options and possible next steps. We gave that advice two thumbs up! There’s too much at stake for the future of our water to back down now. Iowans have a right to clean water and we won’t stop until that right is defended.