as-applied constitutional challenge in Iowa

2018In Bruegger , we held that the defendant could present an as-applied constitutional challenge to his twenty-five-year prison sentence for statutory rape because the facts of his case amounted to "a relatively rare case where an individualized assessment of the punishment imposed should be permitted." 773 N.W.2d at 884 .

2018For instance, in Bruegger , we held that the defendant's twenty-five year prison sentence for statutory rape was susceptible to an as-applied constitutional challenge because the unique features of the case "converge[d] to generate a high risk of potential gross disproportionality-namely, a broadly framed crime, the permissible use of preteen juvenile adjudications as prior convictions to enhance the crime, and a dramatic sentence enhancement for repeat offenders." 773 N.W.2d at 868 , 884 .

2017See Adams v. City of Des Moines, 629 N.W.2d 367, 369 (Iowa 2001) (citing Ritz v. Wapello County Board of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999), to emphasize that a motion to expand a ruling is “crucial to 26 preservation of error” on a legal issue urged but not decided in the district court).

2017See Adams v. City of Des Moines, 629 N.W.2d 367, 369 (Iowa 2001) (citing Ritz v. Wapello County Board of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999), to emphasize that a motion to expand a ruling is “crucial to 26 preservation of error” on a legal issue urged but not decided in the district court).

2017See Adams v. City of Des Moines, 629 N.W.2d 367, 369 (Iowa 2001) (citing Ritz v. Wapello County Board of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999), to emphasize that a motion to expand a ruling is “crucial to 26 preservation of error” on a legal issue urged but not decided in the district court).

2017See Adams v. City of Des Moines, 629 N.W.2d 367, 369 (Iowa 2001) (citing Ritz v. Wapello County Board of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999), to emphasize that a motion to expand a ruling is “crucial to 26 preservation of error” on a legal issue urged but not decided in the district court).

2017Harris, 322 P.3d at 161 (rejecting argument that reading of statute in as-applied constitutional analysis bears on merits of question of statutory interpretation).

2017Harris, 322 P.3d at 161 (rejecting argument that reading of statute in as-applied constitutional analysis bears on merits of question of statutory interpretation).

2025See, e.g., Boyd, 999 F.3d at 176 (“In upholding § 922(g)(8) against this as-applied constitutional challenge, we now join the other circuits to have considered the issue.”).

2025See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 137 F.4th 1153, 1155–57 (10th Cir. 2025) (applying Rahimi to reject a facial constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)); United States v. Perez-Gallan, 125 F.4th 204, 215–16 (5th Cir. 2024) (same); United States v. Combs, No. 23–5121, 2024 WL 4512533, at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024) (same); Boyd, 999 F.3d at 185– 89 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) before Rahimi); United States v. Zamboroski, No. 24–CR–93–A, 2025 WL 378397, at *2– 3 (W.D.N.Y.

2025See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 137 F.4th 1153, 1155–57 (10th Cir. 2025) (applying Rahimi to reject a facial constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)); United States v. Perez-Gallan, 125 F.4th 204, 215–16 (5th Cir. 2024) (same); United States v. Combs, No. 23–5121, 2024 WL 4512533, at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024) (same); Boyd, 999 F.3d at 185– 89 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) before Rahimi); United States v. Zamboroski, No. 24–CR–93–A, 2025 WL 378397, at *2– 3 (W.D.N.Y.

2025See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 137 F.4th 1153 , 1155–57 (10th Cir. 2025) (applying Rahimi to reject a facial constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)); United States v. Perez-Gallan, 125 F.4th 204 , 215–16 (5th Cir. 2024) (same); United States v. Combs, No. 23–5121, 2024 WL 4512533 , at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024) (same); Boyd, 999 F.3d at 185– 89 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) before Rahimi); United States v. Zamboroski, No. 24–CR–93–A, 2025 WL 378397 , at *2– 3 (W.D.N.Y.