inalienable rights clause in Iowa

2022In this appeal, the defendants and amici curiae renew prior invitations to overrule Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C.’s controversial three-part test under the inalienable rights clause, article I, section 1 of the Iowa Constitution. 684 N.W.2d 168 , 177–79 (Iowa 2004).

2022In considering whether the legislation was unduly oppressive under the third part of the inalienable rights test we applied in Gacke, we identified three facts that showed it was oppressive to the Gackes: they received no particular benefit from the immunity provision other than that inuring to the public in general, they spent considerable sums to improve their property prior to construction of the facility, and they resided on their property long before the animal operation was commenced. 684 N.W.2d at 178 ; see also Honomichl v. Valley View Swine, LLC, 914 N.W.2d 223 , 234–35 (Iowa 2018) (e

2025Iowa Constitution article I, section 1, provides that “[a]ll men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.” This inalienable rights 69 clause “secure[s] to the people of Iowa common law rights that pre-existed Iowa’s Constitution.” Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641, 651 (Iowa 2006); see also Gray v. Oliver, 943 N.W.2d 617, 629–31 (Iowa 2020) (explaining that article I, section 1 protects preexisting common law rights); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (exp

2025Iowa Constitution article I, section 1, provides that “[a]ll men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.” This inalienable rights 69 clause “secure[s] to the people of Iowa common law rights that pre-existed Iowa’s Constitution.” Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641, 651 (Iowa 2006); see also Gray v. Oliver, 943 N.W.2d 617 , 629–31 (Iowa 2020) (explaining that article I, section 1 protects preexisting common law rights); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (ex

2015In Gacke, the plaintiffs relied upon a 1950 case, which stated that the inalienable rights clause “was intended to secure citizens’ pre-existing common law rights (sometimes known as ‘natural rights’) from unwarranted government restrictions.” Id. (citing May’s Drug Stores v. State Tax Comm’n, 242 Iowa 319 , 328–29, 45 N.W.2d 245, 250 (1950)). 26 Jacobsma asserts he has a “liberty interest” in being free from civil liability for an act or event when there is no proof of a causal connection between the defendant or the act or event or, in the alternative, a special relationship between the defe

2015In Gacke, the plaintiffs relied upon a 1950 case, which stated that the inalienable rights clause “was intended to secure citizens’ pre-existing common law rights (sometimes known as ‘natural rights’) from unwarranted government restrictions.” Id. (citing May’s Drug Stores v. State Tax Comm’n, 242 Iowa 319 , 328–29, 45 N.W.2d 245, 250 (1950)). 26 Jacobsma asserts he has a “liberty interest” in being free from civil liability for an act or event when there is no proof of a causal connection between the defendant or the act or event or, in the alternative, a special relationship between the defe

2022Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”); Honomichl, 914 N.W.2d at 240 (Waterman, J., concurring specially) (“The inalienable rights clause should be read together with the clause that immediately follows it in the Bill of Rights.”).

2022In considering whether the legislation was unduly oppressive under the third part of the inalienable rights test we applied in Gacke, we identified three facts that showed it was oppressive to the Gackes: they received no particular benefit from the immunity provision other than that inuring to the public in general, they spent considerable sums to improve their property prior to construction of the facility, and they resided on their property long before the animal operation was commenced. 684 N.W.2d at 178 ; see also Honomichl v. Valley View Swine, LLC, 914 N.W.2d 223 , 234–35 (Iowa 2018) (e

2025Instead, it is “to be enforced by the judiciary.” Hoover v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 222 N.W. 438, 439 (Iowa 1928) (quoting United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882)).

2025Instead, it is “to be enforced by the judiciary.” Hoover v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 222 N.W. 438, 439 (Iowa 1928) (quoting United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882)).

2022See id. at 485–86.

2022See id. at 485–86.

2025Reasonable regulations of the right include those laws that advance the legitimate ends of government and that use only those “means . . . reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose” and that are “not unduly oppressive upon individuals.” Gravert v. Nebergall, 539 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 (1894)).

2018In Gravert v. Nebergall , the landowners alleged Iowa's partition fence statute violated the inalienable rights clause of article I, section 1 of the Iowa Constitution. 539 N.W.2d 184 , 185-86 (Iowa 1995).

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 , 501–02 (Ky. 1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 117 S.W. 383, 387 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sunquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, 501-02 (Ky.1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 295 Ky. 861 , 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 133 Ky. 50 , 117 S.W. 383, 387 (1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 , 501–02 (Ky. 1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 117 S.W. 383, 387 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sunquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, 501-02 (Ky.1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 295 Ky. 861 , 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 133 Ky. 50 , 117 S.W. 383, 387 (1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2015See Gacke, 684 N.W.2d at 178 (property interest); Gibb, 286 N.W.2d at 186 (liberty interest); Benschoter, 232 Iowa at 1361–63, 8 N.W.2d at 486 (property interest).

2015See Gacke, 684 N.W.2d at 178 (property interest); Gibb, 286 N.W.2d at 186 (liberty interest); Benschoter, 232 Iowa at 1361–63, 8 N.W.2d at 486 (property interest).

2015In Gibb, 286 N.W.2d at 188 , we held the inalienable rights clause permits witnesses to limit their cross-examination if the witness makes an adequate evidentiary record that demonstrates that continuing to testify would jeopardize their safety or that of their family.

2015In Gibb, 286 N.W.2d at 188 , we held the inalienable rights clause permits witnesses to limit their cross-examination if the witness makes an adequate evidentiary record that demonstrates that continuing to testify would jeopardize their safety or that of their family.

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 , 501–02 (Ky. 1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 117 S.W. 383, 387 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sunquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, 501-02 (Ky.1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 295 Ky. 861 , 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 133 Ky. 50 , 117 S.W. 383, 387 (1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 , 501–02 (Ky. 1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 117 S.W. 383, 387 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sunquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2015See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, 501-02 (Ky.1992) (holding inalienable rights provision protected private sexual conduct); Commonwealth v. Masden, 295 Ky. 861 , 175 S.W.2d 1004, 1008 (1943) (enforcing inalienable rights provision to allow property owner to kill wild animals damaging or threatening to damage property); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 133 Ky. 50 , 117 S.W. 383, 387 (1909) (holding right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, with no injury to other citizens, is within the inalienable rights clause); Planned Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 13, 25 (

2007See Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 662 (noting when no fundamental right is involved, “a statute need only survive a rational basis analysis” to meet the requirements of substantive due process); Grovijohn, 643 N.W.2d at 204 (“If the claimed dissimilar treatment does not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right, any classification made by the statute need only have a rational basis [to meet the requirements of equal protection].”).

2007See Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 662 (noting when no fundamental right is involved, “a statute need only survive a rational basis analysis” to meet the requirements of substantive due process); Grovijohn, 643 N.W.2d at 204 (“If the claimed dissimilar treatment does not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right, any classification made by the statute need only have a rational basis [to meet the requirements of equal protection].”).

2006Burlington & Mo. River R.R. v. County of Wapello, 13 Iowa 388, 412 (1862) (concluding that the purpose of the unenumerated rights clause is to “bring ... unenumerated rights retained by the people, founded equally ... upon natural justice and common reason ... within the censorship of courts of justice ... when ... [the rights are] assailed”).

2006Burlington & Mo. River R.R. v. County of Wapello, 13 Iowa 388, 412 (1862) (concluding that the purpose of the unenumerated rights clause is to “bring . . . unenumerated rights retained by the people, founded equally . . . upon natural justice and common reason . . . within the censorship of courts of justice . . . when . . . [the rights are] assailed”).

2022Co. State of Pa., 927 N.W.2d 180 , 190–91 (Iowa 2019) (applying rational basis review to reject an inalienable rights clause challenge to statutory immunity for insurance safety inspections); Jacobsma, 862 N.W.2d at 352–53 (applying rational basis review to a constitutional challenge to an automated traffic enforcement ordinance under the inalienable rights clause); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (rejecting inalienable rights clause challenge to payday loan statute and equating review to rational basis test, noting the statute “impacts a property N.W.2d

2022Co. State of Pa., 927 N.W.2d 180 , 190–91 (Iowa 2019) (applying rational basis review to reject an inalienable rights clause challenge to statutory immunity for insurance safety inspections); Jacobsma, 862 N.W.2d at 352–53 (applying rational basis review to a constitutional challenge to an automated traffic enforcement ordinance under the inalienable rights clause); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (rejecting inalienable rights clause challenge to payday loan statute and equating review to rational basis test, noting the statute “impacts a property right.

2025Reasonable regulations of the right include those laws that advance the legitimate ends of government and that use only those “means . . . reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose” and that are “not unduly oppressive upon individuals.” Gravert v. Nebergall, 539 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 (1894)).

2025Reasonable regulations of the right include those laws that advance the legitimate ends of government and that use only those “means . . . reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose” and that are “not unduly oppressive upon individuals.” Gravert v. Nebergall, 539 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 (1894)).

2015More recently, relying on the doctrine of necessity as articulated in Ward, we held in State v. Reese, 272 N.W.2d 863 , 866–67 (Iowa 1978), that under the inalienable rights clause, a prisoner who alleged he was threatened by physical harm or rape if he remained in prison has a right to the defense of necessity in a case involving a prison escape.

2015More recently, relying on the doctrine of necessity as articulated in Ward, we held in State v. Reese, 272 N.W.2d 863, 866-67 (Iowa 1978), that under the inalienable rights clause, a prisoner who alleged he was threatened by physical harm or rape if he remained in prison has a right to the defense of necessity in a case involving a *352 prison escape.

2025Instead, it is “to be enforced by the judiciary.” Hoover v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 222 N.W. 438, 439 (Iowa 1928) (quoting United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882)).

2025Instead, it is “to be enforced by the judiciary.” Hoover v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 222 N.W. 438, 439 (Iowa 1928) (quoting United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882)).

2025Iowa Constitution article I, section 1, provides that “[a]ll men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.” This inalienable rights 69 clause “secure[s] to the people of Iowa common law rights that pre-existed Iowa’s Constitution.” Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641, 651 (Iowa 2006); see also Gray v. Oliver, 943 N.W.2d 617, 629–31 (Iowa 2020) (explaining that article I, section 1 protects preexisting common law rights); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (exp

2025Iowa Constitution article I, section 1, provides that “[a]ll men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.” This inalienable rights 69 clause “secure[s] to the people of Iowa common law rights that pre-existed Iowa’s Constitution.” Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641, 651 (Iowa 2006); see also Gray v. Oliver, 943 N.W.2d 617 , 629–31 (Iowa 2020) (explaining that article I, section 1 protects preexisting common law rights); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (ex

2025Iowa Constitution article I, section 1, provides that “[a]ll men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.” This inalienable rights 69 clause “secure[s] to the people of Iowa common law rights that pre-existed Iowa’s Constitution.” Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641, 651 (Iowa 2006); see also Gray v. Oliver, 943 N.W.2d 617, 629–31 (Iowa 2020) (explaining that article I, section 1 protects preexisting common law rights); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (exp

2025Iowa Constitution article I, section 1, provides that “[a]ll men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty.” This inalienable rights 69 clause “secure[s] to the people of Iowa common law rights that pre-existed Iowa’s Constitution.” Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641, 651 (Iowa 2006); see also Gray v. Oliver, 943 N.W.2d 617 , 629–31 (Iowa 2020) (explaining that article I, section 1 protects preexisting common law rights); Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Iowa 2007) (ex

2019The State has a substantial interest “in regulating its wildlife and the hunting thereof.” State v. Keehner, 425 N.W.2d 41, 45 (Iowa 1988); see also Metier v. Cooper Transp.

2019As discussed in relation to the inalienable rights clause, the Iowa statute is rational because it “help[s] preserve gender balance needed to maintain herd sizes.” See Schutz, 415 F.3d at 1135 . 13 We conclude section 483A.24 is a valid exercise of the State’s interest “in regulating its wildlife and the hunting thereof.” See Keehner, 425 N.W.2d at 45 .